EU Annual Accounts
The Myths about The EU's Accounts Being Signed Off and Not Being Corrupt in the Slightest - The 'Truth' is Completely Different and That is Even from the EU Own Auditors and Their own Findings, so It Must be True, as otherwise, The EU would be Lying now wouldn't they?
How anyone can back further EU membership when you look at the EU's own Auditor's findings for their highly qualified EU accounts, is an insane judgement and beyond my comprehension in human intelligence. For the EU auditors state clearly that the EU accounts are given the comment and finding that,
"We therefore give an adverse opinion on their legality and regularity"
Consequently those who wish to stay in the EU, must be able to accept corrupt systems and people who are in the EU. It therefore says very little about these people and questions have to be asked clearly about their integrity, if they put their names and support behind such regimes that clearly are against transparency and the rule of our sovereign law; as corruption even according to the EU's own auditors is endemic within the whole rotten operations of the EU. The problem of course is that the EU has now had over 20 years and more of first-hand knowledge of all these internal crimes that are being undertaken continually, but have done hardly anything to eradicate them. Indeed as the EU has grown ever larger, the corruption has got far worse, perpetrated by EU national states (EU 28), EU companies and EU citizens. Things are just going to get worse and where I for one do not wish to be controlled by a corrupt political organization that simply does not care about how the people's taxation disappears year-in, year-out, without no change happening. Indeed questions have to be asked to the effect, is the top EU people a larger version of what has happened at FIFA and they are as corrupt as the FIFA officials. Because as we all know, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." (Professor Sir John Dalberg-Acton, 8th Baronet).
For what really those who want to stay in the EU are saying is that they are happy with signing off the EU's accounts in what we do not normally understand or accept accounts for the UK and where this is not the same as for transparent and balancing UK accounts, as they could not be signed off here in Britain.
In this respect, the EU accounts are highly qualified as I have stated previously and where no-one in the UK could get away with what the EU Auditors state in their annual findings, as they are totally unreliable.
Therefore if those who want to stay in the EU mean that Auditors of the EU sign off unreliable accounts they are right, but where you also have to agree with the statement, that also they are not signed off on the basis of what is accepted in all other walks of life. If they were, we would all be in prison, serving time.
Therefore for people's information, I copy and paste the 'exact' extracts from the 2014 EU Auditor's Report so that you are respectfully informed of the true state of the situation. But to comprehend what is the 'truth', it depends on your understanding of signing off of acceptable accounts, as bad accounts can be signed off if you wished to do that also and that is exactly what the EU has now done for 20 years, signing off highly 'unreliable' accounts.
The following is therefore listed as verbatim and taken from the EU's Auditor's actual reporting for the 2014 accounting period.
2014 - EU audit brief
Introducing the 2014 annual reports of the European Court of Auditors
...For many years now, we have identified persistent high levels of error in EU spending.
So, we highlight the scope for making better use of available information and full use of corrective powers to reduce errors further and recover more misspent funds...
Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA President of the European Court of Auditors
Payments for 2014 are materially affected by error.
We therefore give an adverse opinion on their legality and regularity.
...It is important that the Commission analyses the areas of persistent high levels of errors as soon as possible and assesses opportunities for reducing this while strengthening the focus on performance in spending.
Personal Comment: Signed off but highly qualified that are given an 'adverse opinion on their legality and regularity' by the EU Auditors themselves. Who in the real world of business and commerce would accept such a situation, but apparently where all EU governments do, including the United Kingdom, who wish to stay in this corrupt regime of elitist self-interest. This of course to the total detriment overall of the taxpayer and 90% of the 500 million+ EU citizens who pay for all this dire state of affairs.
Example: Significant errors in research and innovation costs declared for reimbursement under FP7 by an SME
We found that €764 000 of costs declared by an SME working with 16 partners on a renewable energy project financed through FP7 were almost entirely ineligible. The SME owner had charged an hourly rate well above that set in the Commission's guidelines.
Moreover, we identified sub contracting costs which were neither an eligible component of costs nor procured by means of a tendering procedure.
The declared indirect costs also included ineligible items, which were based on estimates and could not be reconciled with the beneficiary's accounting records.
The main source of error for the spending on economic, social and territorial cohesion as a whole continues to be infringement of public procurement rules, accounting for nearly half of the estimated level of error. This is followed by the inclusion of ineligible expenditure in the beneficiaries' cost declaration, infringement of state aid rules and the selection of ineligible projects.
The impact of errors varies between these two spending areas.
Cases of serious failure to comply with public procurement rules that we identified in our audit work include, for example, unjustified direct award of contracts, additional works or services, unlawful exclusion of bidders, as well as cases of conflict of interest and discriminatory selection criteria.
Example: Unjustified direct award of public works
In a project in Malta related to the reconstruction and upgrade of a motorway section of a TEN T road network, the contracting authority negotiated directly a contract with one company without a prior call for competition. This is not in line with EU and national procurement laws and the expenditure declared for this contract is ineligible. Another main cause of error is ineligible expenditure. This is due to, for example, expenditure declared outside the eligibility period, overcharged salaries, the declaration of costs not related to the project, non compliance with national eligibility rules, or revenue that has not been deducted from the declared costs.
Example: Incorrect declaration of salaries
In a project in Portugal related to a training programme for young people, the grant agreement provisions on how teachers’ salaries are to be calculated were not complied with by the beneficiary. In addition, the teachers did not work as many hours as declared. This resulted in personnel costs being overcharged.
Examples of overstated or ineligible claims
Aid for permanent pasture
In the Czech Republic, France, Greece, Poland, Slovakia and Spain, some land claimed and paid for as permanent grassland was in reality fully or partly covered with ineligible vegetation (dense shrubs, bushes, trees and rock).
Aid for arable land
In the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Spain and the United Kingdom, we found cases of land claimed by beneficiary farmers as arable when this was not the case. In Spain, aid was paid for land claimed and recorded in the land parcel identification system as arable land which was, in reality, a motocross track.
Examples of eligibility errors
We found three cases of suspected intentional circumvention of the rules when claiming for aid. These cases were forwarded to the European Anti Fraud Office for analysis and possible investigation. For confidentiality reasons, we cannot disclose specific details of these cases but can describe the general nature of these errors:
Well established companies, which would not qualify for financing, set up new entities to artificially meet the eligibility and selection criteria.
Groups of persons set up several entities for the purpose of obtaining aid which exceed the ceiling allowed under the conditions of the investment measure. Although the beneficiaries declared that these entities operate independently, this was not the case in practice.
Examples of non compliance with agri environment commitments
We detected six such cases in Germany, Italy and United Kingdom. For example, in the United Kingdom, a beneficiary did not respect the commitment he made to close off a hay meadow for grazing before 15 May of each year.
We found significant weaknesses in nine of the 12 reviewed systems of Member States. For the five paying agencies that we visited on the spot, the system weakness that we found were very similar to those identified and reported in previous years.
Comment & Conclusion
The EU's Accounts are signed off on the basis of a great deal of riders as briefly outlined above and are highly qualified. The EU's Auditors make this very clear in their declarations.
The most damning statement being, We therefore give an adverse opinion on their legality and regularity.
No other accounts in the UK say, would be allowed to do this as they are not a true picture of reality, as the books do not balance and there is a high degree of corruption as stated in outline above. As previously stated, all copied and pasted verbatim from the actual EU audit for 2014.
For if you were a potential investor in a company called EU Limited and knowing of the highly qualified accounts, you would not buy into such a company due to its inherent corruption (and based upon the EU's Auditor's comments).
Or, the big question is to all those who just want to stay in the EU, would you, no matter what; because once signed up after the referendum, there will be no coming out as the treaty makes it clear that it is legally irrevocable and therefore forever? Therefore what if we make a very big mistake and realise this in the future. What then?
Stop Press - Cameron Forced to put in the Queen's Speech or suffer defeat in parliament if he did not exclude the NHS from the TTIP trade negotiations
Cameron was forced to include a clause yesterday (19.05.16) so that the NHS was excluded in the TTIP negotiations. This should tell everyone that he is working for the corporations, as the TTIP is a corporate treaty in reality and why should he have had to be forced to do this if the TTIP is so good for the people?
But he is having to do this under duress. Unfortunately for the NHS this will not stop the EU from privatising the NHS over a relatively short period of time when we have signed to stay in the EU and where because the TTIP makes it clear that 'MONOPOLIES' cannot exist, the EU will demand that the NHS is privatised.
And Britain will not be able to do a single thing against this, as we would then be trapped inside an all-powerful EU and under their total control. Don't believe me, return here in a mere 10 years time to see that all the above has unfortunately come true if we stay in the EU. For only by voting OUT can the NHS be saved and that is ultimately the truth.
I just wish people would wake up to the reality of the EU and where we shall definitely not be able to save the NHS and anything else for that matter that we cherish so much, once we sign to stay in the EU. For this time it will be forever.
Dr David Hill
CEO, World Innovation Foundation
6 March 2016 (updated 20 May 2016)
CEO, World Innovation Foundation
6 March 2016 (updated 20 May 2016)
2014 - EU audit in brief - Introducing the 2014 annual reports of the European Court of Auditors - http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/auditinbrief-2014/auditinbrief-2014-EN.pdf#page=10