Food Shortage Plan Being Drawn Up To...
News0 min ago
Eu Budget Is Illegal
31 Answers
surprise, surprise! This is the 21st year the accounts could not be signed off. They expect us to reman in this corrupt organisation.
Answers
The above link is a carefully crafted synopsis for the 2013 accounts!! But if you look at the very last page it shows(in the form of a bar graph that is not to scale) that in the Expenditure Transactions there is an error of 4.7%. It does not give the figure which turns out to be 7.05 billion Euros. That is only of course the detected 'errors' (that is what they call...
12:35 Mon 15th Feb 2016
The EU accounts have errors in its expenditure payments, but that is to be expected in any large organisation. While the amounts of money are large, it is a small per cent of expenditure.
Some of the payments will be fraudulent, such as when British farmers were claiming for non existant sheep which came to light during the foot and mouth outbreak. There will be other scams going on now.
But that does not make the EU budget illegal. It does not mean the accounts have not been signed off by the auditors, because they have.
// It’s that time of year again when the European Union budget is subject to scrutiny. Every year the budget is audited by the independent European Court of Auditors. Every year for the past seven years the Auditors have signed off the accounts as being reliable and accurate. And every year, British media have claimed that the EU accounts haven’t been passed by the auditors at all.
The fact is that, contrary to the convincing assertions by some UK media, the EU accounts have been passed by the independent auditors every year since 2007 as accurate, legal, regular and reliable. Furthermore, the EU has no debt or borrowings and the books are always balanced every year. (From 1994 to 2004, the EU budget was subject to cash-based accounting. Improved accruals-based accounting was introduced in 2005. The European Court of Auditors gave qualified approval to accounts until 2006, and unqualified approval - 'clean' opinion - since 2007.)
It’s true that the auditors strongly criticised EU expenditure for having 4.7% of errors – these were essentially administrative mistakes, and specifically not fraud – but then, all government accounts across the world have a percentage of managerial errors. For example, in some recent years, the US government accounts had error rates higher than 5% - worse than the EU. In the UK, some government department budgets have error rates bigger than the EU budget. For example, according to the National Audit Office, Housing Benefit fraud and error has increased to 5.8%. //
http://
The EU accounts have errors in its expenditure payments, but that is to be expected in any large organisation. While the amounts of money are large, it is a small per cent of expenditure.
Some of the payments will be fraudulent, such as when British farmers were claiming for non existant sheep which came to light during the foot and mouth outbreak. There will be other scams going on now.
But that does not make the EU budget illegal. It does not mean the accounts have not been signed off by the auditors, because they have.
Some of the payments will be fraudulent, such as when British farmers were claiming for non existant sheep which came to light during the foot and mouth outbreak. There will be other scams going on now.
But that does not make the EU budget illegal. It does not mean the accounts have not been signed off by the auditors, because they have.
// It’s that time of year again when the European Union budget is subject to scrutiny. Every year the budget is audited by the independent European Court of Auditors. Every year for the past seven years the Auditors have signed off the accounts as being reliable and accurate. And every year, British media have claimed that the EU accounts haven’t been passed by the auditors at all.
The fact is that, contrary to the convincing assertions by some UK media, the EU accounts have been passed by the independent auditors every year since 2007 as accurate, legal, regular and reliable. Furthermore, the EU has no debt or borrowings and the books are always balanced every year. (From 1994 to 2004, the EU budget was subject to cash-based accounting. Improved accruals-based accounting was introduced in 2005. The European Court of Auditors gave qualified approval to accounts until 2006, and unqualified approval - 'clean' opinion - since 2007.)
It’s true that the auditors strongly criticised EU expenditure for having 4.7% of errors – these were essentially administrative mistakes, and specifically not fraud – but then, all government accounts across the world have a percentage of managerial errors. For example, in some recent years, the US government accounts had error rates higher than 5% - worse than the EU. In the UK, some government department budgets have error rates bigger than the EU budget. For example, according to the National Audit Office, Housing Benefit fraud and error has increased to 5.8%. //
http://
The EU accounts have errors in its expenditure payments, but that is to be expected in any large organisation. While the amounts of money are large, it is a small per cent of expenditure.
Some of the payments will be fraudulent, such as when British farmers were claiming for non existant sheep which came to light during the foot and mouth outbreak. There will be other scams going on now.
But that does not make the EU budget illegal. It does not mean the accounts have not been signed off by the auditors, because they have.
//The EU accounts have errors in its expenditure payments, but that is to be expected in any large organisation. While the amounts of money are large, it is a small percent of its expenditure.//
Gromit
I can't believe you think this is a small amount, when you can only look at it as a percentage. Any large organisation with such large holes in its accounts would be answerable to their shareholders. I see the nation states in the EU as shareholders.
We are not alone in protesting this time with Sweden andHolland trying to block this.
Gromit
I can't believe you think this is a small amount, when you can only look at it as a percentage. Any large organisation with such large holes in its accounts would be answerable to their shareholders. I see the nation states in the EU as shareholders.
We are not alone in protesting this time with Sweden andHolland trying to block this.
Gromit
//The auditor has signed off the accounts. They always have been.//
i read today "the auditors refused to give the eu budget a clean bill of health for the 21st year in a row. EU accountants said some 4.4 per cent of the expenditure in 2014 was 'irregular and possibly illegal'. But the accounts were approved by a majority of EU Finance Ministers'. (well they would wouldn't they)
So that to me is not signing off by auditors.
//The auditor has signed off the accounts. They always have been.//
i read today "the auditors refused to give the eu budget a clean bill of health for the 21st year in a row. EU accountants said some 4.4 per cent of the expenditure in 2014 was 'irregular and possibly illegal'. But the accounts were approved by a majority of EU Finance Ministers'. (well they would wouldn't they)
So that to me is not signing off by auditors.
Almost a perfect copy and paste post from gromit, almost europhilesque, in that he was posting something from euro central, but forgot he had already copied most of the bullshot already. Crooked, self serving, lying gits.
//the EU accounts have been passed by the independent auditors every year since 2007 as accurate, legal, regular and reliable.//
Auditors chosen by .....say America, Australia, India, Japan, go on guess.
//the EU accounts have been passed by the independent auditors every year since 2007 as accurate, legal, regular and reliable.//
Auditors chosen by .....say America, Australia, India, Japan, go on guess.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank0 min ago
News3 mins ago
Crosswords4 mins ago
The Starmer Stasi At It Again......
News11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
