GENERAL ELECTION 8th June

[Mike Storey]

I entirely agree. Unfortunately, accountancy has never been a strong point of the EU Commission with its accounts not having passed audit for many years.

 

Not actually true Joseph. The accounts have been passed every year up to 2015, subject to provisos amounting to less than 4% of the total, which occur as explained above. This is not an inconsequential amount but it is the same level of proviso consistently used for the UK's accounts, but with a less demanding (i.e. less accurate) accounting standard used by the UK.

[Zomboid]

As far as the country coming together goes, from my anecdotal experience, those who were on the losing side of the referendum might have resigned themselves to that, but certainly haven't changed their minds. If anything they feel more strongly pro European now than they did at the time.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Not actually true Joseph. The accounts have been passed every year up to 2015, subject to provisos amounting to less than 4% of the total, which occur as explained above. This is not an inconsequential amount but it is the same level of proviso consistently used for the UK's accounts, but with a less demanding (i.e. less accurate) accounting standard used by the UK.

Obviously I have been suckered by another "straight banana" story.

 

Mind you, I suspect that HMRC would not be that tolerant if I make an error of 4% in my duty and/or tax calculations.

[Arthur]

Not actually true Joseph. The accounts have been passed every year up to 2015, subject to provisos amounting to less than 4% of the total, which occur as explained above. This is not an inconsequential amount but it is the same level of proviso consistently used for the UK's accounts, but with a less demanding (i.e. less accurate) accounting standard used by the UK.

That may be true but as I wouldn't trust the accounts returned by several European states in the first place and have even less trust in their proberty in spending the money my faith in the accuracy of the 'signed off' accounts is, er, zero.

 

From the following link

 

'The extent of corruption in Europe is "breathtaking" and it costs the EU economy at least 120bn euros (£99bn) annually, the European Commission says."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26014387

 

Also from the linked report,

 

In the UK only five people out of 1,115 - less than 1% - said they had been expected to pay a bribe. It was "the best result in all Europe", the report said.

 

.

[chrisf]

I report, without comment or opinion, a possibly amusing remark by whoever it was MC'ing a speech by an opposition politician this morning.  She said: "June comes after the end of May."

 

Chris 

[Mike Storey]

Broadly, yes, but I think you'll find that the Government is actually reserving the right to use Statutory Instruments (SI) to amend UK law, without recourse to parliament, or giving any indication as to the likely scope that it will apply SIs.  

 

See sections 3.7 to 3.25 in this document;  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-great-repeal-bill-white-paper/legislating-for-the-united-kingdoms-withdrawal-from-the-european-union

 

It all depends how much you trust our politicians to use this very wide sweeping power in the long-term national interest rather than their own short-term political interest. 

 

I guess it is all about trust. The proposal (well worth reading if you have not) is perfectly sensible in its language, but the reality is that a govt with a large majority can always suppress requests for scrutiny of negative Statutory Instruments. This is what I have concerns over, and there are many examples of this power being arguably, wrongly used in the past (by all flavours of party). This is also the govt that tried to implement the biggest change in our lives for 40 years through using the Royal Perogative, without parliamentary scrutiny. The justice system thankfully prevented that, not that there was much to scrutinise in the end. But it set a good precedent for the rest of the process.

[Nearholmer]

Yes, I'm generally pro- European, but I have seen at first hand some very cavalier use of public, EU, money by administrations in Italy and Ireland, and I've seen some pretty pointless expenditure of EU grant funds in this country ...... both probably correctly accounted, in a formal sense, but wasteful due to lack of effective accountability to the electorate/taxpayers.

[APOLLO]

Yes, Quite a few years ago the EU funded the expensive block paving of the Leeds - Liverpool canal through Wigan, and not just a bit - well over 5 miles of it with fancy lighting in places. looked nice but a tarmac job would have been far more cost efficient, and wouldn't have had sections of it stolen !!

 

Brit15

[chrisf]

I've been wondering why the election should be in June instead of May and the only logical reason I can think of is to avoid claims of political bias every time it's mentioned - otherwise all we'd hear about is 'May's Election', which might upset a few folk.  

 

Because there has to be time for Parliament to pass certain Bills before it is dissolved and to allow the statutory period for nominating candidates.  There is no way that an election announced on 18th April could be held on 4th May without running the risk of being challenged in the courts.

 

Chris

[Arthur]

Yes, I'm generally pro- European, but I have seen at first hand some very cavalier use of public, EU, money by administrations in Italy and Ireland, and I've seen some pretty pointless expenditure of EU grant funds in this country ...... both probably correctly accounted, in a formal sense, but wasteful due to lack of effective accountability to the electorate/taxpayers.

Like many, I have driven on some splendid European motorways and passed more signs telling me how they were funded by the EU than I passed other traffic.

 

Vanity projects?

 

.

[Mike Storey]

Yes, I'm generally pro- European, but I have seen at first hand some very cavalier use of public, EU, money by administrations in Italy and Ireland, and I've seen some pretty pointless expenditure of EU grant funds in this country ...... both probably correctly accounted, in a formal sense, but wasteful due to lack of effective accountability to the electorate/taxpayers.

 

Maybe so. But remember that all such project bids are agreed to and promoted by local authorities, or NGO's, and are approved by national (or devolved) government departments, so are perfectly capable of scrutiny by our elected representatives, when they can be bothered. In many cases, such projects were the result of last minute scrambles to spend it or lose it. BR operated in much the same way, and local authorities still have to. If they don't spend, or commit, their allotted capital budgets in any given year, that budget is generally reduced the following year. Leaving the EU is not going to change that longstanding hiatus which goes back many decades.

[Arthur]

No, but at least we'll be wasting our money here than elsewhere.

 

And, from the above report

 

In the UK only five people out of 1,115 - less than 1% - said they had been expected to pay a bribe. It was "the best result in all Europe", the report said.

 

spending less on bribes.

 

.

[jjb1970]

Yes, I'm generally pro- European, but I have seen at first hand some very cavalier use of public, EU, money by administrations in Italy and Ireland, and I've seen some pretty pointless expenditure of EU grant funds in this country ...... both probably correctly accounted, in a formal sense, but wasteful due to lack of effective accountability to the electorate/taxpayers.

 

 

And that is the problem in this debate, I don’t think anybody is under any illusions that the EU is perfect. The EU is a known quantity, is far from perfect but I believe on balance is a positive force. The counter offer is unknown and since it is unknown can be all things to all people who dislike the EU and came with a powerful emotional appeal for many.

I spent a couple of years as rapporteur of an EC expert group, have worked extensively for the Commission, advised governments on EU matters and had to act for governments in applying EU regulations and directives. Having seen the EC from the inside I’m fully aware of its faults, I’m also fully aware of the faults of our own government and overall found that EU Directives are far better written than our own legislation. Much of the red tape and idiocy which is laid at the door of Brussels is down to the cack handed way our own government transposes European instruments into UK instruments. One of the things I always find interesting is to ask people for details of the perfidious European red tape and crazy requirements that they don’t like.

As a Europhile who voted remain and would vote remain I am a supporter of Europe despite the problems.

[Arthur]

 

Indeed, all too convenient for the UK, or any national government, to blame their ills, unpopular legislation and regulation, on the EU.

 

Once out, the buck stops with our government.

[Neil]

No, but at least we'll be wasting our money here than elsewhere.

 

And, from the above report

 

In the UK only five people out of 1,115 - less than 1% - said they had been expected to pay a bribe. It was "the best result in all Europe", the report said.

 

spending less on bribes.

 

.

 

I've read the above report, my reading of it is that corruption costs the EU economy £99bn a year, but (and this is a significant but) this isn't something that Brussels or Strasbourg are directly complicit in. It's an attempt to total up the losses due to corruption of every member country in the EU. In fact the report specifically omits corruption within EU institutions. You could for example commission a report on all crime committed within the EU, some countries would fare better than others but it would be stretch of credibility to state that the institutions of the EU were responsible for those crimes.

[Mike Storey]

No, but at least we'll be wasting our money here than elsewhere.

 

And, from the above report

 

In the UK only five people out of 1,115 - less than 1% - said they had been expected to pay a bribe. It was "the best result in all Europe", the report said.

 

spending less on bribes.

 

.

 

Except that 64% of Britons polled believed corruption was widespread in the UK. You can read anything you like into it. The report actually stated Sweden was the least corrupt country, not the UK. You boldly state we will be spending less on bribes, but we don't now, at least across Europe - those figures relate to corruption within each state, with their own businesses. Very little to do with the funds distributed by the EU, although of course some of that may be involved, but if you look at the comparable figures, it must be a tiny part.

 

Next time, check the bribery that BAe, Rolls Royce, HSBC and several other big UK names, have been fined for undertaking or allowing. Check the UK electoral expenditure returns which the Police are currently investigating. Check the continuing conflicts of interests of MP's, Counsellors and Local Authority CEO's and CFO's being investigated (or at least reported) over the past several years. Then tell us we are so much better than everyone else.

[Arthur]

 

Oh, that's alright then, the EU bear no responsibility for how their funds are used.

 

The point is that much EU money is wasted through corruption and as the report states;

 

"The political commitment to really root out corruption seems to be missing," she complained.

 

it's not changing any time soon.

[Edwardian]

Dispatched my first Activist this morning.  Decisively and with economy of expression.

 

Asked the Mrs if she thought I might have been a bit rude.  "Yes", she said, "and I've never felt prouder of you".

[Mike Storey]

Oh, that's alright then, the EU bear no responsibility for how their funds are used.

 

The point is that much EU money is wasted through corruption and as the report states;

 

"The political commitment to really root out corruption seems to be missing," she complained.

 

it's not changing any time soon.

 

Once more, in unison - the report is not about and does not mention EU funds. Full Stop.

[MJI]

Have a brilliant photo of a handryer with wording 'push for short speech by N***** S******* but cant attach because when posted under jokes forum it was removed.

 

Perhaps because to many north of the wall its no joke!

 

Dave.

 

I took a while to work that one out as I thought of N**** F*****

[62613]

straight bananas spring to mind!

You're aware that the UK government pushed the directive relating to this, to protect producers in the W.I. against South American and U.S. importers. But of course, our press, led by the Brussels correspondent of one them, twisted this through 180 degrees. The directive never mentioned straight bananas, anyway.

[admiles]

As far as the country coming together goes, from my anecdotal experience, those who were on the losing side of the referendum might have resigned themselves to that, but certainly haven't changed their minds. If anything they feel more strongly pro European now than they did at the time.

I can assure you all the people in my industry losing their jobs, homes, futures over this fiasco are certainly not changing their minds.

 

To them "signing on" and watching everything they've worked for disappear after, in many cases continuous employment all their working lives,

is not "taking back control".

 

The fact this has been foisted on them as a result of a pack of lies and mis-truths just makes it all the more galling.

[admiles]

Like many, I have driven on some splendid European motorways and passed more signs telling me how they were funded by the EU than I passed other traffic.

 

Vanity projects?

 

.

Or maybe just sensible projects to improve the infrastructure on that part of the country?  Or is everything ever funded by the EU now, in your eyes, wasted

money?

[Dunsignalling]

Except that 64% of Britons polled believed corruption was widespread in the UK. You can read anything you like into it. The report actually stated Sweden was the least corrupt country, not the UK. You boldly state we will be spending less on bribes, but we don't now, at least across Europe - those figures relate to corruption within each state, with their own businesses. Very little to do with the funds distributed by the EU, although of course some of that may be involved, but if you look at the comparable figures, it must be a tiny part.

 

Next time, check the bribery that BAe, Rolls Royce, HSBC and several other big UK names, have been fined for undertaking or allowing. Check the UK electoral expenditure returns which the Police are currently investigating. Check the continuing conflicts of interests of MP's, Counsellors and Local Authority CEO's and CFO's being investigated (or at least reported) over the past several years. Then tell us we are so much better than everyone else.

There's a lot more to corruption than just bribery, and the big names you cite were caught out doing what is normal business practice in certain countries where they trade.

 

They were brought to book because such matters are considered more worthy of investigation and action in the UK than in some other jurisdictions. 

 

John

[Nearholmer]

So, given that, for better or worse, we are leaving the EU, and that the election will, to a lesser or greater degree, clear the decks, so that the PM can negotiate towards an outcome as she sees fit, without annoyance from cranky backbenchers or liberal moderators, and that, therefore, Brexit will be whatever Brexit is ........ In short, Brexit is now barely worth discussing.

 

What do we actually want the post-Brexit UK (or, our individual bits of, if it fractures in the process) to be like?

 

It is a relevant question, because, if we gull ourselves into believing that this is a single-issue, mandate-for-Brexit, election, we could easily hand a blank piece of paper to the incoming government, to write on whatever they fancy about the future, post Brexit, nature of the place.

 

Kevin