EU fails to get accounts signed off again

2»

Comments

  • Nick1966Nick1966 Posts: 15,742
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    MTUK1 wrote: »
    Here we go. Mr Mobile Phone Roaming in the EU is here.

    Now, you are embarrassing yourself.

    You are still in with a chance of digging yourself out of your own hole.

    All you have to do is address the points raised by the other contributors.

    No jibes, no bluster, no dismissive comments. Just confine yourself to the points raised by the other contributors. That's all your have to do. Nothing more. Nothing less. That's it.
  • Nick1966Nick1966 Posts: 15,742
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    AndyCopen wrote: »
    £411,000 for a dog fitness and rehabilitation centre that was never built
    €5.25m for fleet of limousines for MEPs in Strasbourg
    €16,000 to Tyrolean farmers to boost their emotional connection with the landscape
    €5,000 on a “Europe Horse” to promote the EU to German children
    €900,000 for a golf course, hotel and spa whose guests include Chancellor Merkel
    €7.5m of EU funding for PR campaign for EU funding
    €1.6 million to the Swedish King to cover his financial losses
    €5.1m “culture club” for EU bureaucrats in Luxembourg
    €8.5bn failure to deliver improved infrastructure in Sicily

    This list goes on and on and on and on and on

    Then can we see some more of this list, to which you refer, please ?
  • Nick1966Nick1966 Posts: 15,742
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    AndyCopen wrote: »
    Someone signed it

    Who was that exactly ?
    AndyCopen wrote: »
    saying "a lot of money has gone missing"

    Were those their exact words ?

    Or is this hyperbole ?
  • MTUK1MTUK1 Posts: 20,077
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Nick1966 wrote: »
    Now, you are embarrassing yourself.

    You are still in with a chance of digging yourself out of your own hole.

    All you have to do is address the points raised by the other contributors.

    No jibes, no bluster, no dismissive comments. Just confine yourself to the points raised by the other contributors. That's all your have to do. Nothing more. Nothing less. That's it.

    I take it you've been interviewed for position of politics board moderator? Obviously, you have the final say and I bow down to your superior knowledge. As someone so fantastically clever in all areas of life can you please explain why every year it's reported the accounts have not been signed off? Are all news outlets simply making it up?
  • MTUK1MTUK1 Posts: 20,077
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Nick1966 wrote: »
    Then can we see some more of this list, to which you refer, please ?

    Do you think it's satisfactory for anything that's there to be on that list?
  • jmclaughjmclaugh Posts: 63,988
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    One of the comments made by the auditors on the EU accounts was that the whole ethos in the EU is to set the budget, finance it and then spend it as opposed to ensure what is spent is both worthwhile and value for money for taxpayers.
  • Nick1966Nick1966 Posts: 15,742
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    MTUK1 wrote: »
    Do you think it's satisfactory for anything that's there to be on that list?

    Some of items on that list appear puzzling. Further research indicates that some of the money was spent by the member states on behalf of the EU.

    Overall, it's an incidental list of money which might have been better spent.

    Governments and suprnational bodies mispend money. That's what they do. Lots of money passing through lots of hands. Companies mispend money. I could be better paid, if my company ordered only want it really needed.

    Overall, I have no real opinions on the list.
  • MTUK1MTUK1 Posts: 20,077
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Nick1966 wrote: »
    Some of items on that list appear puzzling. Further research indicates that some of the money was spent by the member states on behalf of the EU.

    Overall, it's an incidental list of money which might have been better spent.

    Governments and suprnational bodies mispend money. That's what they do. Lots of money passing through lots of hands. Companies mispend money. I could be better paid, if my company ordered only want it really needed.

    Overall, I have no real opinions on the list.

    Although I disagree with you on near enough everything you're being disingenuous by saying you have no opinions on that list.
  • Nick1966Nick1966 Posts: 15,742
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    MTUK1 wrote: »
    I take it you've been interviewed for position of politics board moderator?

    I have not been interviewed for that position.
    MTUK1 wrote: »
    Obviously, you have the final say

    No one has the final day on this board.
    MTUK1 wrote: »
    I bow down to your superior knowledge.

    On this occasion, flattery will get you no where.
    MTUK1 wrote: »
    As someone so fantastically clever in all areas of life

    Gosh. Do you think so ? What makes you think that ?
    MTUK1 wrote: »
    can you please explain why every year it's reported the accounts have not been signed off?

    I am unaware of any official press release from the European Court of Auditors which specifically says "we have not signed off the EU accounts".
    http://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=29181

    MTUK1 wrote: »
    Are all news outlets simply making it up?

    Making it up ? Possibly.
    Manufacturing outrage ? Definitely.
  • Nick1966Nick1966 Posts: 15,742
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    MTUK1 wrote: »
    Although I disagree with you on near enough everything you're being disingenuous by saying you have no opinions on that list.

    Would a better answer for you be:

    "It's disappointing to see yet another government or supranational body spend money in a less than a efficient manner. Overall, given trade, access to the EU single market and consumer benefits, it's still in the UK's interest to remain a member state"
  • MTUK1MTUK1 Posts: 20,077
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Nick1966 wrote: »
    Would a better answer for you be:

    "It's disappointing to see yet another government or supranational body spend money in a less than a efficient manner. Overall, given trade, access to the EU single market and consumer benefits, it's still in the UK's interest to remain a member state"

    Lol. Spoken like a Brussels Spin doctor.
  • Nick1966Nick1966 Posts: 15,742
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    MTUK1 wrote: »
    Lol. Spoken like a Brussels Spin doctor.

    I am starting to think that you worship me.

    You bow to my superior knowledge
    You think I am fantastically clever
    You think I have applied for post of politics board moderator
    And now you have liken me to a spin doctor

    You really admire me don't you ? Find my line arguments playful, clever and teasing. Wished you have the witty replies that I can rustle up at the touch of a button.

    Don't be scared or intimidated. Embrace my intellectual prowess. You know you can.
  • BlairdennonBlairdennon Posts: 14,207
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Nick1966 wrote: »
    Would a better answer for you be:

    "It's disappointing to see yet another government or supranational body spend money in a less than a efficient manner. Overall, given trade, access to the EU single market and consumer benefits, it's still in the UK's interest to remain a member state"

    It is disappointing what makes it worse it is supranational where accountability for spending is at best distant and in many instances non-existent. Spending in a lawful manner depends in many instances on the feedback from the member states. The point of course is that obscuring corrupt finances is much easier in a large organisation than in a smaller tightly managed organisation.
  • Nick1966Nick1966 Posts: 15,742
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The point of course is that obscuring corrupt finances is much easier in a large organisation than in a smaller tightly managed organisation.

    Agreed.

    So it's good that we have the European Court of Auditors highlighting accounting and auditing issues isn't ?
  • BlairdennonBlairdennon Posts: 14,207
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Nick1966 wrote: »
    Agreed.

    So it's good that we have the European Court of Auditors highlighting accounting and auditing issues isn't ?

    Of course it is, we not expect anything less, it does not negate the point however.
  • Sniffle774Sniffle774 Posts: 20,290
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MTUK1 wrote: »
    Are all news outlets simply making it up?

    Would we be shocked if they did in all honesty ? Many of them do have "form" for that.
  • jmclaughjmclaugh Posts: 63,988
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Nick1966 wrote: »
    So it's good that we have the European Court of Auditors highlighting accounting and auditing issues isn't ?

    Well it would be if anything was done about them but the same issues are raised year in year out by the auditors.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 12,003
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    MTUK1 wrote: »
    Quit with the vendetta you have against me. It's not going to work. I am still here.
    Let's get one thing straight - I don't have a vendetta against anyone online. What I do is respond to posts that I think I can contribute to, and sometimes where a post is clearly dumb and/or incorrect, point it out.* Although I prefer just being silly and having a laugh with people of like mind.
    Two minutes searching my back posts will establish that fact.

    It's perfectly acceptable, and it's what people do all over the threads.
    If I happen to regularly respond to particular people, that's because they set themselves up. It's a public forum. How come loads of others respond to you regularly, yet I'm on a vendetta? And I'm not plain rude to people.

    * and this post
    MTUK1 wrote: »
    OK so 3.6bn Euros of errors is satisfactory?
    implies you now accept you were wrong, for your argument has now switched to whether the figures are correct rather than whether they were signed off.
    Unfortunately it misses the point which in fact answers the question - 'qualified accounts' means there are serious concerns about some aspects, but not enough to not accept them. It happens all the time ... see DHSS/DWP etc as I've said before (and repeat below).

    However, seeing as you've taken that line - what would you find an acceptable % of error?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 14,922
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    MTUK1 wrote: »
    Do you think it's satisfactory for anything that's there to be on that list?

    Where did the list come from?

    Have you got the link to the source for the list?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 12,003
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Nick1966 wrote: »
    So it's good that we have the European Court of Auditors highlighting accounting and auditing issues isn't ?
    Yes, but ..
    if the accounts are continually 'qualified' then it begins to make the whole exercise meaningless. The whole point is it's a warning to get your house in order.

    Apologies for using the same example again, but it is the best we have by a long way. The DHSS accounts, followed by the DSS / BA ones were qualified or not signed off for years. I think the DHSS etc ones hold some kind of record for this, and they were eventually regarded as pure fantasy. It did contribute to their amalgamation with other Departments (although as we know the DWP does no better).

    At some point you'd have thought someone would step in and insist it was sorted out, otherwise 'qualifying' is a pointless exercise in not being confrontational over a serious issue. And it's two-faced - how come I can't send accounts to HMRC and them regard them as 'qualified'? >:(
  • MTUK1MTUK1 Posts: 20,077
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    WindWalker wrote: »
    Where did the list come from?

    Have you got the link to the source for the list?

    I didn't post it. Although things like this have been spoken about before.
  • MTUK1MTUK1 Posts: 20,077
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    WindWalker wrote: »
    Where did the list come from?

    Have you got the link to the source for the list?

    I didn't post it. Although things like this have been spoken about before.
  • cessnacessna Posts: 6,747
    Forum Member
    WindWalker wrote: »
    No mention of any of that list on there. :confused:

    The link relates to Item 2 - being one of the items on the list regarding the costly and wasteful utiliseation of a fleet of EU funded limousines travelling twixt Strasbourg and Brussels every month carrying out some kind of crazy document courier service which it is understood is entirely unnecessary ! I cant help you regarding other items on the list.
  • davzerdavzer Posts: 2,501
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MTUK1 wrote: »
    No they don't.

    The only reason they aren't signed off is because member states don't track the spending of monies given to them by the EU.

    Nothing to do with the EU as an institution.

    For the ignorant

    http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/european-auditors-point-to-errors-but-sign-off-eus-accounts/

    For example, if member state authorities spending EU money on a new bridge did not properly follow public procurement rules – that is not acceptable. But it does not mean that the bridge is not built or the money is wasted.
  • Jellied EelJellied Eel Posts: 33,091
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    davzer wrote: »
    The only reason they aren't signed off is because member states don't track the spending of monies given to them by the EU.

    Which means it's ok for the EU to be unaccountable for the money it's doling out?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/11209248/EU-auditors-refuse-to-sign-off-more-than-100billion-of-its-own-spending.html

    The audit, published this morning, found that £109 billion out of a total of £117 billion spent by the EU in 2013 was "affected by material error”.

    I'm sure HMRC would have words (and demand money) if any of my accounts were qualified in that way.
Sign In or Register to comment.