May's "ordinary working people"?

[MrGongGong]

Regarding 'complete sign off' by the auditors, this is not something I would expect. My point was that according to MrGG, if there really was such a scrupulous, forensic process in place for EU bids as he was inferring, one far superior to the British government’s processes, then why not full sign off? My response was to his silly inference, not an expectation of full sign off.
.

B*lllshit
but I expect nothing less from those who have no experience of these things

The Inland Revenue in the UK doesn't have "full sign off" , you can go back and revise your submitted accounts for several years afterwards

This whole made up nonsense is as credible as the straight banana myth
But while our incompetent "leaders" carry on with messing about many of us are already suffering the adverse effects

[french frank]

91% of those spending areas do have errors. That's what the auditors are saying.

The direct quotes I gave are from those same auditors. The phrase that 91% of the spending areas 'have errors' is clearer than what you originally quoted, with no further clarification and, in my view, you either misunderstood the significance or were attempting to mislead. In the end, an error level of 4.7% - given that under 2% is considered 'not material' does NOT constitute errors that - to quote you - are 'frightening'.

And quoting - wait for it - 7 billion euros!!! :yikes: is still only 4.7% error not 91% (and by the way the accounts signed off in 2015 showed 3.8% error level, 5.5bn euros). This is like people who have never had more than two brass farthings being amazed/frightened at the mere thought of £1m. This is 7bn euros spread over the greater part of the European continent: you react as if the UK were losing 7 bn euros which it could put to better use. I think Gongers is correct in suggesting that the accounts are meticulously recorded and scrutinised. 'Scope for improvement [sic] but nothing seriously wrong' seems a fair résumé.

By the way, as a point of comparison: the refurbishment of Broadcasting House a few years ago cost £1bn.

[teamsaint]

If HMRC discovered that a person had under declared their income by 4.7 % for all the in date years, they would be down on them like a tonne of bricks.
If if turned out that a corporation had done the same thing,there would be public outrage.

It is a LONG way from acceptable. You can't just dismiss the portion that makes up the 2% either. 2% is just an arbitrary line, it could just as well be 0.1%.0.5%, 5%, whatever.
It is still error.

[Beef Oven!]

The Inland Revenue in the UK doesn't have "full sign off" , you can go back and revise your submitted accounts for several years afterwards

Which is basically what I said.

[Beef Oven!]

If HMRC discovered that a person had under declared their income by 4.7 % for all the in date years, they would be down on them like a tonne of bricks.
If if turned out that a corporation had done the same thing,there would be public outrage.

It is a LONG way from acceptable. You can't just dismiss the portion that makes up the 2% either. 2% is just an arbitrary line, it could just as well be 0.1%.0.5%, 5%, whatever.
It is still error.

There’s little point in trying to reason with EU supporters on things like this, especially when it comes to spending the tax-payers money. Socialists have a very generous attitude with other people’s money.

[MrGongGong]

Which is basically what I said.

So why go on about the nonsense about the EU not having signed off accounts ?
Why not stick to the traditional lies about millions of Bulgarians, straight bananas and the rest of the cr*p

[Beef Oven!]

So why go on about the nonsense about the EU not having signed off accounts ?
Why not stick to the traditional lies about millions of Bulgarians, straight bananas and the rest of the cr*p

I wasn’t going on about anything - I don’t think you understand the point being made.

[MrGongGong]

I wasn’t going on about anything - I don’t think you understand the point being made.

I do

you said this "if there really was such a scrupulous, forensic process in place for EU bids as he was inferring"

THERE IS every receipt, every expense and every outcome matched against what was proposed
the people I work on these things with are mostly university professors who really do know stuff (you probably have lots of their music on your shelves)

The "eurosceptics" always bang on about the supposed inability of the EU to "sign off" it's accounts as it's a good story like the straight bananas and all the other made up b*llshit

[french frank]

If HMRC discovered that a person had under declared their income by 4.7 % for all the in date years, they would be down on them like a tonne of bricks.

But the nature of the error in this case is not the same as an individual's income. Payments are usually made, in good faith, by the EU - for example what appeared to be a legitimate claim by a political party represented in the European Parliament, as its entitlement, which it then misspent on national elections in its own country (does that ring a bell?).

It is still error.

Yes, the fault may lie with the claimant, but the blame falls on the EU. This is unlike in the UK where fault and blame fall on MPs who make illegitimate claims which are paid out to them without full scrutiny. In fact it takes the press to uncover the scale of deceit.

You are talking about deliberate attempts to deceive - that is not what the EU auditors found the EU guilty of. That would be fraud which, as Beefy has, is very low.

I was reacting to Beefy's claim that the level of error was "frightening". You say "unacceptable" which all parties agree is the case.

But comparing the EU's budget with an individual's income tax is like Mrs Thatcher comparing the UK's budget to the housewife's purse.

[MrGongGong]

But comparing the the EU's budget with an individual's income tax is like Mrs Thatcher comparing the UK's budget to the housewife's purse.

Exactly
The constant appeals to "common sense" are ridiculous IMV

[teamsaint]

I'm talking about the scale of the errors, not whether it is fraud by the EU.
The EU spends our money, and it is up to them to account for where it goes, and to within 5% is way off acceptable IMO.
We wouldn't accept that from the UK government ( I hope).

[Beef Oven!]

I'm talking about the scale of the errors, not whether it is fraud by the EU.
The EU spends our money, and it is up to them to account for where it goes, and to within 5% is way off acceptable IMO.
We wouldn't accept that from the UK government ( I hope).

We already have the UK losses, and ff and MrGG want to build further losses on top. But they don’t care, it’s other people’s money, not theirs!

[french frank]

The EU spends our money, and it is up to them to account for where it goes, and to within 5% is way off acceptable IMO.

But they do account for where it goes - that is the point the Auditors have made every year: "The European Court of Auditors gives a clean opinion on the reliability of the [2015] accounts of the European Union."

[teamsaint]

But they do account for where it goes - that is the point the Auditors have made every year: "The European Court of Auditors gives a clean opinion on the reliability of the [2015] accounts of the European Union."

but with a 4.7% level of error ?

[Beef Oven!]

But they do account for where it goes - that is the point the Auditors have made every year: "The European Court of Auditors gives a clean opinion on the reliability of the [2015] accounts of the European Union."

You’re not grasping it. 7 billion Euros, on top of whatever the UK government loses. This level of bureaucratic waste, spent by unelected bureaucrats is unacceptable.

Your intransigence in this matter is indicative of one of the reasons why so many of us voted to leave the EU.

If EU supporters hadn’t been so pig-headed down the years and hadn’t denied these obvious problems, then I’m sure we would not be leaving the EU. Self-inflicted.