May's "ordinary working people"?

[french frank]

"How does the Commission respond to errors that are uncovered?

There is a robust, multi-layered system of controls and audits in place to avoid irregularities in EU spending. Nonetheless, errors do happen when large sums are distributed to millions of recipients in 28 different countries. The Commission takes a very strong stance on the principle that when an error is found, the money must be recovered. In 2012, for example, the Commission recovered or corrected €4.4 billion of incorrectly paid amounts. In total, financial corrections and recoveries for 2009-12 correspond to 2% of the average volume of payments in that period …

"Does an error mean that money has been lost, wasted or subject to fraud?

Absolutely not. Error rates cannot be 'translated' into an amount lost [NB!!!]. Errors in procedures do not mean failed projects or wasted funds. Despite errors, the money may have well been spent in line with what it was meant for. Mistakes in a form for a tender procedure for a bridge construction project do not mean that the new bridge should be dismantled or that it is of poor quality …"

[Beef Oven!]

"How does the Commission respond to errors that are uncovered?

There is a robust, multi-layered system of controls and audits in place to avoid irregularities in EU spending. Nonetheless, errors do happen when large sums are distributed to millions of recipients in 28 different countries. The Commission takes a very strong stance on the principle that when an error is found, the money must be recovered. In 2012, for example, the Commission recovered or corrected €4.4 billion of incorrectly paid amounts. In total, financial corrections and recoveries for 2009-12 correspond to 2% of the average volume of payments in that period …

"Does an error mean that money has been lost, wasted or subject to fraud?

Absolutely not. Error rates cannot be 'translated' into an amount lost [NB!!!]. Errors in procedures do not mean failed projects or wasted funds. Despite errors, the money may have well been spent in line with what it was meant for. Mistakes in a form for a tender procedure for a bridge construction project do not mean that the new bridge should be dismantled or that it is of poor quality …"

This means that every penny that the EU spends goes where it was supposed to and there is absolutely no lost money.

One can believe that or not.

I know that every FD I’ve ever worked with would give me a strange look if I came up with stuff like that!

[french frank]

This means that every penny that the EU spends goes where it was supposed to and there is absolutely no lost money.

No, it doesn't. It means that you can't extrapolate from the audit's 'error level' a specific amount of money lost, in billions of euros (which is exactly what you did). And that you can't assume because there was an error in the audit that the money was consequently wasted/lost. And you ignore the fact that errors thrown up by the audit can result in incorrectly spent sums being clawed back.

[Beef Oven!]

No, it doesn't. It means that you can't extrapolate from the audit's 'error level' a specific amount of money lost, in billions of euros (which is exactly what you did). And that you can't assume because there was an error in the audit that the money was consequently wasted/lost. And you ignore the fact that errors thrown up by the audit can result in incorrectly spent sums being clawed back.

I’ve given my views. What do you make of it?

[french frank]

I’ve given my views. What do you make of it?

1. The audit finds an error level in excess of the 2% materiality threshold, and states that there is 'scope for improvement'.

2. The EU acknowledges the necessity to improve on the error level, and has done so in recent years.

3. The audit provides no basis to conclude that X billion euros have been wasted or lost.

4. The audit 'errors' include technicalities in procedures, but do not all indicate misspent or wasted funds.

5. It is simply untrue to say that the EU's accounts have not been signed off for X years (not something which I think you have claimed).

6. The level of fraud in the EU is small (again, not something that you have claimed).

[Beef Oven!]

but with a 4.7% level of error ?

They say that it’s alright that they can’t account for 7 billion effin’ euros because the money "may have well been spent in line with what it was meant for" !!!!!

It beggars belief!

Only the most obdurate among us would think this is alright.

[Beef Oven!]

1. The audit finds an error level in excess of the 2% materiality threshold, and states that there is 'scope for improvement'.

2. The EU acknowledges the necessity to improve on the error level, and has done so in recent years.

3. The audit provides no basis to conclude that X billion euros have been wasted or lost.

4. The audit 'errors' include technicalities in procedures, but do not all indicate misspent or wasted funds.

5. It is simply untrue to say that the EU's accounts have not been signed off for X years (not something which I think you have claimed).

6. The level of fraud in the EU is small (again, not something that you have claimed).

7. There’s 7 billion euros that they think "may have been spent well" (curious way of putting it) "in line with what it was meant for" !!!!!!!!!!!

(I actually asked you what you made of it)

[teamsaint]

Unless it is a normal accounting practice, ( I doubt it very much ) the 2% " materiality threshold" looks to be something of a convenience. I suppose it doesn't matter , to the extent that it is regularly exceeded in any case.

[french frank]

They say that it’s alright that they can’t account for 7 billion effin’ euros

For goodness sake! You cannot calculate 7 billion euros from the 'error level'. And if the error is purely procedural, the money isn't wasted or lost.

[teamsaint]

7. There’s 7 billion euros that they think "may have been spent well" (curious way of putting it) "in line with what it was meant for” !!!!!!!!!!!

Sounds like a CD budget to me......

[french frank]

Unless it is a normal accounting practice, ( I doubt it very much )

It's very tiring having to do research to refute what people doubt, suspect, claim &c. without having any knowledge.

Time to get my lunch :smiley:

[teamsaint]

For goodness sake! You cannot calculate 7 billion euros from the 'error level'. And if the error is purely procedural, the money isn't wasted or lost.

Of course you can quite fairly calculate that amount. Of course it isn't an "actual" figure , but it seems perfectly reasonable to extrapolate to give a fair idea of the true costs potentially involved.

IF the amount is purely procedural, then that needs sorting, so that we can have confidence in the system. Just saying it might be procedural, at such a high level of error, really isn't good enough. We wouldn't put up with it from other government bodies.

[Beef Oven!]

For goodness sake! You cannot calculate 7 billion euros from the 'error level'. And if the error is purely procedural, the money isn't wasted or lost.

You jolly well can if you can’t find it!


"It's there somewhere" !!

"Don't worry about it" !!

"It may have well been spent on what it was meant for" !! :laugh:

"It’s only 7 billion euros" !!

Only the most obdurate .........

(you still won't tell us what you make of all this)

[teamsaint]

It's very tiring having to do research to refute what people doubt, suspect, claim &c. without having any knowledge.

Time to get my lunch :smiley:

Wiki suggests that on profits of $100m or more, materiality is usually calculated at 0.5%, or 0.5% to 1% of gross revenue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materiality_(auditing)

Those levels seem much more reasonable than the 2% threshhold, or 4.7 % error.

I haven't got time for lunch, still working on an export deal:whistle:

[ahinton]

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.

"EU supporters" are not all "Socialists", though!