[Closed] EU HOKEY COKEY

Out.

Though I doubt if we'll get the chance of a vote.

Nigel Farrage must be laughing his tits off!

If someone asked you to invest your own money, your pension maybe,in a private company that hadn't submitted any accounts for 17 years, and had never been audited, would you?

Would you ****?!!

The idea of the EU is great. The reality, unfortunately, is an anti-democratic, corrupt shambles

So you read the link then before you rantette then - there are tons of mention of audit and they even mention whodoes the auditing of their accounts
Less frothing over Europe and more thinking. Europe really does turn you in to an unthinking knee jerk reactionary Binners

Overall I think a reduction is fair given what is going on

However when only 9 out of 27 are net contributors it is obvious the majority will want the budget to increase as they are in effect asking for a pay rise

I dont think CMD wants a referendum and i dont think the Lib dems or labour will vote for so he is just appeasing his right wing xenophobes by pretending to do something he knows he cannot. Fiscally he knows it would be meltdown to leave for a decade or so so he wont want to whatever his political views

I would vote to keep in as it would annoy so many people that annoy me 😉

They have 'attempted' to audit the EU. In the same way, that as a child, I often attempted to fly.

They've never actually managed it, have they? Just as I didn't. The accounts have never been signed off. So, just for you, I'll rephrase my original question...

If someone asked you to invest your own money, your pension maybe,in a private company that hadn't submitted any accounts for 17 years, and had never been [b]successfully [/b]audited, would you?

Would you ****!!

If a private business ran its affairs like this, they'd have been legally wound up approximately.... erm.... 17 years ago

Every politician in this country knows that if there's a referendum, with a straight in/out question, then we're out. No question.

That's why we'll never actually get one, no matter about all the posturing

In but with renegotiation. Either we get as much power within the EU as Germany and France enjoy (being the second highest nett contributor) or take a back seat for a while; not be a nett contributor, bring back some power. Maybe along the same lines as the Swiss (but with membership).

Every politician in this country knows that if there's a referendum, with a straight in/out question, then we're out. No question.

I'd like to see this theory tested, then when the economic consequences hit home, we'll see. I think that anti-EU sentiment is not as extreme as the likes of you dream about.

I would like to see all these EU septics come up with a viable alternative to staying in the EU.

And since it isn't likely that you didn't read anything from the link Binners, 33,000 people work for the European Commission, compared to 82,000 who work for UK Revenue and Customs. So access to the free market in Europe where just over 50% of our exports go? Bargain.

Renegotiation won't work. We'll always be outvoted as the continental european states have a fundementally different outlook to the UK.

Either we get as much power within the EU as Germany and France enjoy

Maybe you could explain which EU rules/laws/regulations give Germany and France more power than the UK?

Every politician in this country knows that if there's a referendum, with a straight in/out question, then we're out. No question.

Yep then every business that is in the UK because they are part of the EU will have to reassess their business. Of course what the right wing frothers really want is all the benefits of union and none of the responsibilities, quite the opposite of what they preach on a national, local and personal level.

They have 'attempted' to audit the EU. In the same way, that as a child, I often attempted to fly.

http://eca.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/publications/AnnualActivityReports

They've never actually managed it, have they? Just as I didn't.

The accounts have never been signed off.

If someone asked you to invest your own money, your pension maybe,in a private company that hadn't submitted any accounts for 17 years, and had never been successfully audited, would you?

Would you ****!!

Well no but as this is not what has happened I fail to see your point. Perhaps if you repeat it often enough it becomes true??

Every politician in this country knows that if there's a referendum, with a straight in/out question, then we're out. No question.

That's why we'll never actually get one, no matter about all the posturing

Ps if you bothered to read the link it also says

While Brussels and the European commission routinely get the blame for these kind of malpractices, however, it is usually national rather than European authorities that have failed or have even been complicit in the scams.

While tens of billions are shelled out to farmers every year, it is national authorities who disburse the funds and then claim it back from Brussels. And it is national inspectors who are responsible for monitoring how the money is spent. In the case of the nice new house in Lombardy, built at the expense of the EU taxpayer, the Italian authority checked and approved the project.

So where there are erros and fraud and other things [ which are not good] it is almost always the national govts who are to blame not the EU themselves- obviously dont let any of these actual facts stop you from repeating your rants

You are getting to near Kaesae levels of bile and misrepresentation now

Here to make it harder for you to ignore the facts I have copied for you MY BOLD

One of the sticks which the anti-Europeans love to beat the EU with is the claim that the EU accounts have not been ‘signed off’ for more than 10 years. They repeatedly use this to conjure up images of widespread fraud and corruption.
This perceived failure to ‘sign off’ the accounts is treated as a unique and exceptional event in the world of government accounting. [b]Yet, the UK’s Department of Works and Pensions which has a much bigger budget than the EU regularly fails to have its accounts ‘signed off’. Similar questions are regularly raised about the accuracy of the Ministry of Defence accounts and about the UK’s Inland Revenue. Indeed, the US federal budget has been known not to be ‘signed off’ by the National Accounting Office.[/b]
Notwithstanding these examples of accounting problems, it is important that the report of the Court of Auditors is properly explained and the criticisms it makes are properly dealt with.
The Court of Auditors is required every year to provide one Statement of Assurance on the whole of the EU budget. This is a very rigid approach. Indeed just how rigid can be found in the excellent UK House of Lords enquiry into the EU budget in 2007. [b]The then UK Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, told them that he would probably not have been able to approve the UK’s accounts using the same system.[/b]
Given the headlines, it is surprising to discover that in fact, [b]the Court of Auditors regularly declare the EU’s accounts as reliable[/b]. Their concern is with the level of errors and irregularities in relation to EU spending. The problem for the European Commission in responding to this is that 80% of EU spending is done by member states who share responsibility for overseeing the proper handling of this money with the Commission. Unfortunately, member states often apply different systems and rules to scrutinising expenditure which create problems for EU oversight. [b]It is also the case, frankly, that member states once they get their hands on the money regard it as theirs and don’t want to hand any back. They are therefore often less rigorous in ensuring that EU rules are followed than they should be.[/b]
The European Parliament (EP) has long been driven to distraction by this problem. As a result of its pressure, a regulation was introduced allowing the Commission to interrupt payments to member states for a maximum of six months, if it has evidence of ‘serious deficiencies’ in management and control systems. Parliament has become more aggressive in demanding that such measures should be taken. This year’s parliamentary rapporteur on EU spending in 2009, Jorgo Chatzimarkakis has been particularly vocal. It appears to be working because last year, it is reported that the Commission froze payments to 51 regional development projects because of poor audit controls. These include projects in countries such as the UK and Germany who normally hold themselves up as exemplars of rigorous auditing.
Another demand of the Parliament has been that member states every year should provide an assurance that EU money has been spent correctly and that they have adequate controls in place. So far only Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK (under the Labour government) have agreed to provide such an assurance. The EP needs to step up the pressure on the other governments. It should be a minimum requirement for handling EU money.
There is another side to this debate. After every headline about ‘fraud’, the EU tightens up the rules on spending. The result is an administrative nightmare for people running EU projects with ever lengthening audit trails. In many cases people feel that it is becoming impossible to spend EU money and at the same time stay within the rules. This is particularly true when transnational projects are undertaken. Here different audit systems and interpretations of the rules make mistakes ever more likely.
So, more power to the elbow of Jorgo Chatzimarkakis and its colleagues in the Budget Control Committee. The real long term solution, though, lies in ensuring that the EU budget post-2013 is simpler, clearer and with fewer objectives. Failure to reverse the descent into complex rules and to strengthen national accountability will only give the anti-Europeans even more ammunition to undermine the EU.

Has anybody considered instead just making the EU a common market?
This would not mean the removal of physical borders, or standards or even fiscal policies but freeing them up to the maximum possible without impenging on memebers states being able to run their own affairs, just a thought 🙂

That's what we thought we'd joined but mainland europe decided they wanted to become a superstate...

Another demand of the Parliament has been that member states every year should provide an assurance that EU money has been spent correctly and that they have adequate controls in place. So far only Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK (under the Labour government) have agreed to provide such an assurance.

So, let me get this right. The pro-EU argument here is 'we asked everyone if they've spent the money wisely, and they've told us they definitely have. Oh... actually... acouple of them have. The rest haven't, obviously. So if a lot of got trousered, or pissed away, its not our fault really. We did ask.....

Yet, the UK’s Department of Works and Pensions which has a much bigger budget than the EU regularly fails to have its accounts ‘signed off’. Similar questions are regularly raised about the accuracy of the Ministry of Defence accounts and about the UK’s Inland Revenue. Indeed, the US federal budget has been known not to be ‘signed off’ by the National Accounting Office.

Sweet Jesus!! When you resort to using the MOD as a benchmark of fiscal responsibility, then it really is time to put your argument out of its misery

The MOD? You couldn't make it up!! 😆

Nice retraction to your original objections

Perhaps the EU should have greater powers over the members so they could force them to comply is that your argument now Binners? Is it still their fault when the members cheat and not the members?

There was slightly more mentioned than the MOD but hey you ignore the thrust of my argument and focus on that - as noted the UK could not "sign off" our accounts using these procedures either so we are just as bad as them arent we and we spend more.
Will you do a ranttete about that now please

All political sources of power will want more power and the institutions will become larger

For me, it like the UK govt, a mixed back some good things I would support some things that boil my piss. I think we could say this about any government.
I suspect much of the objection is that it "them" ruling us.
In all honesty I think our current government is "them" ruling "us" so I am not sure why I should get so upset enraged. Labour are nto really any different so its not entirely a party political point.

I cant decide if it is just some sort of nationalism/threat to our identity that gets an emotional response in folk. Its hard to have a rational debate on the EU which has strengths and weaknesses like any organisation.

Niggle Farridge has tits? 😯

Niggle Farridge has tits?

Probably in his garden Woppit.

If you look at Junky's keyboard, you'll notice that the CTRL, C and V buttons are completely worn out.

🙂

If we leave, then pretty much everything we get from the EU suddenly gets more expensive - and our exports to the EU also become a more difficult sell. I fail to see how that's a good thing.

I suspect much of the objection is that it "them" ruling us.

Thats not my objection at all. I've said it repeatedly - I fully support the principle of a United Europe. Done properly, it would benefit us all enormously. The EU, in its present state is such a wasted opportunity.

My main problem is that as an institution, it is fundamentally undemocratic. The people who make the decisions are not elected by anyone, they're appointed. The elected representatives are then asked to essentially rubber stamp things on their behalf. The whole system of accountability (or lack of) is completely arse-about-face.

And financially, the whole thing is a totally unaccountable (literally and metaphorically) shambles

But there is the rest of the wider world to trade with...

If you look at Junky's keyboard, you'll notice that the CTRL, C and V buttons are completely worn out.

😆

Not tto mention a number of randm vowls and spellchkr

that was not a you Binners i meant in general farage types if you will- we dont want to feel like we are ruled to or dictated to from abroad [ happy for westminster to do it mind] - see prisoners vote for example where CMD may use it and the subsequent fines for human rights violations as a way to beat the EU whilst ignoring the fact we are in breach of the law which puts in with some interesting other governments.

But there is the rest of the wider world to trade with...

Which is unaffected by our inclusion in the EU, so if you think that EU trade will suddenly be replaced with a surge in trade with the rest of the world, you will be very very disappointed.

Renegotiation won't work. We'll always be outvoted as the continental european states have a fundementally different outlook to the UK.

Sadly, the UK electorate can't be trusted with a vote on Europe. See binners' views above.

Seems to me the EU just want us to STFU and give them our money.

A bit like the government, then?

Sadly, the UK electorate can't be trusted with a vote on Europe.

We could always take the usual, thoroughly democratic EU style of referendum, where we're sent away to vote again, and again, until we come back with the 'right' answer 😆

I think you will find that it was member states that did this rather than the EU but of course we should blame the central organisation that had nothing to do with the decision
I cant decide whether to do a wink, face palm or roll my eyes at you

blame the central organisation that had nothing to do with the decision

I'm sure you're right. I'm sure that Brussels just shrugged and said 'fair enough' as they reviewed the repeated rejection of the constitution (even by the French, remember)

Oh... hang on a minute, that's exactly what they did, wasn't it? Then decided that since this rather sorry democratic facade wasn't delivering the results they wanted, they'd just ignore everyone and carry on with what they were going to do anyway. All in a thoroughly democratic and accountable manner, of course 😆

Who are "they"?

You realise that we are part of "them" in fact it's not "them" it is actually "us".

Fair play

We're exactly 1/27th of 'they', as far as decision making goes. So, indeed.... I suppose we do need to fess up to 1/27th of the whole sorry shambles, yes 😉

I'm sure you're right. I'm sure that Brussels just shrugged and said 'fair enough' as they reviewed the repeated rejection of the constitution (even by the French, remember)

The fact the members govts choose to ignore their people is the fault of the elected representatives and their democracies not the EU obviously.

That is beyond spin and opinion.
French govt ignore wishes of voters and ratifies treaty and you blame the EU for this. It makes absolutely no sense and it hardly a credible argument. Its not even what happened either.

Then decided that since this rather sorry democratic facade wasn't delivering the results they wanted, they'd just ignore everyone and carry on with what they were going to do anyway. All in a thoroughly democratic and accountable manner, of course

In the June 2007 European summit meeting, Member States agreed to abandon the constitution and to amend the existing treaties, which would remain in force. They also agreed a detailed mandate for a new intergovernmental conference to negotiate a new treaty containing such amendments to the existing treaties (primarily the Treaty of Rome and the Treaty of Maastricht). These negotiations were completed by the end of the year, the new treaty which had previously been referred to as the Reform Treaty become the Lisbon Treaty on its signing in Lisbon on 13 December 2007.

Really Binners this is most unlike you.

Your view s not even spin its juat a collection of inaccurate claims easily rebuffed by a quick check of the actual facts

The fact the members govts choose to ignore their people is the fault of the elected representatives and their democracies not the EU obviously.

And its your desire to see us enter into ever closer political union with all these people who have signaled so unequivocally their commitment to democratic accountability?

In the June 2007 European summit meeting, Member States agreed to abandon the constitution and to amend the existing treaties, until they resembled exactly, all those in the proposed, but rejected, constitution [s]which would remain in force.[/s]

FTFY 😉

binners - Member
If someone asked you to invest your own money, your pension maybe,in a private company that hadn't submitted any accounts for 17 years, and had never been successfully audited, would you?

Certainly not - unless you are RBS and you want to buy a failed N European bank come-what-may (sorry sideline there!). This is a good and central point, exacerbated by the austerity context.

The accounts have never been signed off. So, just for you, I'll rephrase my original question...

This is where we have to be careful. Step back from the headlines and Farrage/Hannan's rhetoric and let's see if that is actually true? My understanding is that the European Court of Auditors raise various concerns - eg on controls, on targetting, on "material errors" in management and measurement and effectiveness. These are all serious points but IMO they are not the same as saying that auditors have failed to sign off on the accounts. Subtle difference, yes, Semantics, no.

The EU budget and its management is a disaster but it can be correctly attacked without resorting to inaccurate hyperbole. That only makes genuine critics look like looney RW-ers and little Englanders rather than sensible people who are able to conduct sensible analysis of a wasteful and extremely poorly managed institution.

Opinion on the reliability of the accounts VII. In the Court's opinion, the consolidated accounts of the European Union present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Union as of 31 December 2011, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended, in accordance with the provisions of the Financial Regulation and the accounting rules adopted by the Commission's accounting officer.

2011 EU budget. Versus negative opinions such as

1.13. The Court concludes that overall payments were materially affected by error and that the examined supervisory and control systems for payments were, in general, partially effective (see Table 1.2).

FYI - its dull but if anyone is interested

So in Binners land when this happend and the elected representatives of the memebr states accepted this was the failing in democtracy at

a) the local level fo the member state where they ignored their people
b) The fault of the EU

Its rhetorical I know whihc you will irrationally plump for

Witty retorts are easier to do than discuss the actual facts eh

PS 18 out of 15 voted yes , 2 voted no and the other 5 have never voted on it

Were this only slightly different you would be shouting at the French for bullying us and getting their own way despite what the other members thought and you would still be calling it undemocratic

in essence you hate the Eu what happens is immaterial as you can spin any scenario to fit your view

i would rather debate religion with a god botherer as there is as much rational debate and hope for change 😉

Play nicely guys - just because the Israel thread has been closed, there is no need to stop EU debate happening nicely - actually, there is bu$$er all chance of that is there!!!! 😉 (Not on STW - generally I mean!)

*gives junkyard a Chinese burn, and runs off*

We could always take the usual, thoroughly democratic EU style of referendum, where we're sent away to vote again, and again, until we come back with the 'right' answer

Democracy is over-rated - people are idiots, and the tabloid media holds far too much sway.

No politician can come out and say 'I know popular opinion is against us on this, but you haven't really thought it through have you?'

I misread burn there so as not a bad as I initially feared

Anyway, the ESA budget got increased because collaboration and integration can work to everyone's benefit.

iirc one of the budgetary problems is with the Erasmus student exchange program, which unsurprisingly has turned out to be more successfully than anticipated. No surprise its a fantastic idea, who's success should be lauded, fits exactly into the founding principles of the EU.

I have a few friends who want us to pull out of the EU, they can never put up a valid reason.

IMO in some ways it doesn't work but I would far rather be in than out.

Referendum about as likely as Wales beating NZ tomorrow

Wales are going to win???? Blimey, I missed that one. 😉

So what do "we' really think CMD's intentions really are: The context: "Opinion polls suggest a majority of Britons want to leave the EU on the current terms." (FT today) plus economic outlook remains grim out to election, Tories lagging in the polls.

Hmmm, show you are up for a fight, lose gallantly ( we are British after all) and then tell the public, "sorry tried my best, but that's Europe for you!.......Now here's a question for you all.......!!!!"

Rabbit, hat etc spring to mind!!!

nah posturing IMHO
He knows he needs to appease the Binners in his party by acting all tough - probably then blame Euro and Lib Dems for his failure to achieve anything
Igf he starts making a big song and dance about the EU making us give money to prisoners for human rights breaches then he is serious about a vote. i doubt it though as CMD and chums know the cost of everything if not it s actual value

May hold a referendum if he is convinced he will win it and loose the election so that someone else can clean up after him. 😉

The people may like the idea of leaving the EU but they wont like the reality - bit tlike they like th eidea of less car journeys till it is suggested they do the less bit.

As we "discussed" last night, its all academic anyway. Pigface is right. NZ will thump Wales and the EU (in current format) won't exist by 2015 anyway. So the referendum idea will be redundant anyway. As usual the Eurocrats will be 12-24 months behind the real action.

Leaving the EU would mean that visas would be required again for a lot of jobs that EU workers in this country have(and vice versa)

it would basically be a nightmare explosion of bureaucracy and red tape
(in my lab of 30 people at least 15 are from the EU)

I also imagine a lot of factories, farms, hotels, restaurants etc, would suddenly be very short of staff

I can't vote in the UK but would vote "in". Whatever you decide I'm still in as long as France is in.

I think the EU needs an overhaul. The Starbucks saga is just a visible example of countries and businesses (ab)using current EU law to gain unfair advantage. Either the EU needs greater power to properly level the playing field, or individual states need more power to stop corporates abusing the current laws. So, more or less but not what we have now.