So! Was it a Myth?

[kleinboet]

O.K. for the benefit of accuracy, the audit books have not been signed off since 1986. As it is a legal requirement to have a completed audit, why have the police not been involved?

The fact that pensioners move to outside the EU borders is up to the pensioners, I for one would not want to live in any country in Europe, especially if this "democratic" (not)

new treaty goes ahead!!

I think the UK would give the same answer as Ireland - but that is only my opinion - but we are not allowed a democratic choice in the matter, well not under Incapability Brown anyway!!

Edited July 3, 2009 by kleinboet

[captain cojones]

I for one would not want to live in any country in Europe

 

you already do KB ,you already do

[Jim Roper]

Its a shame you hold your fellow countrymen,and pensioners at that,in such contempt.

 

If that's the way you see, your welcome.

[Alan Stubbs]

O.K. for the benefit of accuracy, the audit books have not been signed off since 1986. As it is a legal requirement to have a completed audit, why have the police not been involved?

 

 

The audit was completed. What the European Court of Audit reported was that they could not sign the accounts off as being a clear and legal refection of the accounts.

 

As for the police involvement, why don't you ask them. You seem so virulently anti- anything EU, you could satiate all your xenophobic loathings in one correspondence and perhaps report back with their comments.

[kleinboet]

Allan Stubbs - A rose by any other name.......Thats a load of BS!!! There is no company that I am aware of that would allow that. The shareholders would rip them apart!! If you were a shareholder in a company that said they could not sign the audit as there were too many discrepancies - would you shrug your shoulders and carry on? Because that's what you are saying - and, according to some of you we are,members of a large organization called the EU.

Pre EU we had trading partners all over the world, now, according to the Europhiles, we could not live without the EU!!!

The EU is an organization that is making up silly rules as they go along, arbitrary or not, is extremely expensive to belong to, have wiped out our fish stocks, insist that we must allow the East Europeans (they weren't Europeans when I went to school!) to live in this country (why, they can't live in Italy, France, Germany etc?) and, at one time, tried to stop us using Imperial weights!!

If you are so sure - why don't you ask GB to hold a referendum?

[Alan Stubbs]

Allan Stubbs - A rose by any other name.......Thats a load of BS!!! There is no company that I am aware of that would allow that. The shareholders would rip them apart!! If you were a shareholder in a company that said they could not sign the audit as there were too many discrepancies - would you shrug your shoulders and carry on? Because that's what you are saying - and, according to some of you we are,members of a large organization called the EU.

Pre EU we had trading partners all over the world, now, according to the Europhiles, we could not live without the EU!!!

The EU is an organization that is making up silly rules as they go along, arbitrary or not, is extremely expensive to belong to, have wiped out our fish stocks, insist that we must allow the East Europeans (they weren't Europeans when I went to school!) to live in this country (why, they can't live in Italy, France, Germany etc?) and, at one time, tried to stop us using Imperial weights!!

If you are so sure - why don't you ask GB to hold a referendum?

 

You miss the point and try to mask your ignorance with abuse....The only BS in this thread were your inaccuracies, through your own ignorance about Britain's relationship with the EU. Many posters on this thread have had accurate comment to make from divergent points of view and they have been interesting and stimulating. People have strong views and apart from you they have all made a point of checking their FACTS first. Your comments aren't amongst them, being a case of your opinion posited as fact but devoid of both knowledge of the subject and interpretational skills when you're presented with facts. You seem to revel in demonstrating it. Please don't stop. It's good for a laugh.

 

If you want evidence to support what I'm saying, you commented that 'Britain isn't a member of the EU'. Wrong. You said 'I wouldn't live in a European country', but you do. It's stupid cooments like that which make it nigh on impossible to want to take you seriously when you occasionally do have a fair point to make. It's a bit like crying wolf too often.

 

As for the lack of activity by the member states about the corruption within the EU - for example the Italian olive growers and grape growers, national politics are a principal driver behind this. If you don't like it, why don't you get off your backside and do something about it rather than whinge? You could start by contacting your own MEP and get him to earn his corn. Neil Kinnock tried and failed to address the corruption, the EU commissioners resigned en masse because of the auditor's report. That they were promptly reappointed was a matter for the ministers of their own national governments who, had they been minded, could have appointed someone else.

 

You show an ignorance about corporate audit as well. Where an auditor has doubts as to the accuracy of information presented, they include the statement made by the responsible officer of the company in their report and declare that the figures presented don't support what was said. That's a legal obligation. It's then up to the shareholders to act by resolution on the board of directors. The police will become involved if and when alerted by interested parties - e.g. the company's bankers or a shareholder. Where a company has been found to have been run fraudulently, it is common for the auditor to be sued by the shareholders. Polly Peck and Adil Nasir come to mind.

 

As for why the police weren't involved in the frauds committed within the EU, sorry to disabuse you KB old thing, they have been. The case of the Austrian wine growers and the use of anti-freeze in their Schluck harvest a while back comes to mind. As for other frauds, if they exist, why don't you start asking questions of the responsible parties? C'mon, it's not as if you have to go out to earn a living, is it? You seem quite proud of that for some reason. I always thought that caring for one's life partner was a duty done for love, not something to brag about as you did recently in an attempt to justify your topical ignorance.

 

You do actually have a start of a fair point about the EU in one area, though I suspect you wouldn't realise it given your previous performances. I agree that some of the EU laws and pronouncements do sound and seem absurd on occasion. However, you overlook that for every law which hits the statute book from the EU, it is possible that laws from all the EU member states can be removed from their own staute books - so in theory 1 new law replaces over 20 old laws. Seems like a fair exchange to me.

 

It wasn't the EU who ruined the fisheries, KB, it was those who for years have over-fished them, you know, the commercial fishing interests who could have diversified but chose instead to over-fish. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you have to do something. There's a huge difference, but one which obviously is lost on you. By the way, even as members of the EU, we have trading partners all over the world, but you fail to understand a point I've made to you in other threads, that we haven't got ENOUGH trade to replace our trade with the EU countries immediately, should we leave the EU. Thus, there would be an almighty balance of payment deficit. I hope I've put that clearly and succinctly enough so that even you can at last understand. I'm sorry if it was too subtle for you when I said the same thing a few weeks ago.

 

You complain about the influx of Eastern Europeans into Britain. They come here because they can - in the same way you could live in any EU member state should you wish. Why don't you similarly vent about the number of Britains who moved to Spain? They have free right to do so. If people choose to come to Britain because they see us as an easy touch, that's Britain's fault, not the EU. If you don't like it, vote for a party that does give a damn about it. I certainly wouldn't support it as I like the diversity of culture and have, in the main benefitted from being a citizen of an EU member state. I don't like a lot of the stuff coming out of the EU, but in the round, we're better off in the tent pi55ing out tha outside the tent pi55ing in. I simply don't see the need to posture and windbag about having a referendum in the UK and as you haven't made a case which stands up, you haven't persuaded me to join the cause.

 

As for not having been in existence when you were in school, it is a obvious that someone from the continent of Europe is 'European'. The term has applied the the area North of Greece since before 500BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe In 1970, the GCE 'O' Level syllabus for Geography regarded 'Europe' as a continent west of the Ural Mountains which would include - get out an atlas and check it, there's a good fellow: Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Greece and part of Turkey - Which clarifies a whole lot about you and some of your attitudes, methinks.

Edited July 5, 2009 by Alan Stubbs

[Worms]

get out an atlas and check it, there's a good fellow:

 

:bigemo_harabe_net-163:

[kleinboet]

An answer to that statement of inaccurate excuses. If an auditor has audited books which don't add up, he is honour bound to report those figures to the committee,who then find out why the inaccuracies and sort them out (I learnt this running two businesses). The amended figures are then re-presented and then signed off!

All this rubbish of "points" that are wrong are excuses - The EU are not being held responsible for expenditure, whether it be MEPs (as in the UK) or some other reason.

When I went to school, my atlases clearly demarcated Europe and the Eastern Bloc. These new countries were not in Europe but the Eastern Bloc so that is changing. But as I stated - they were not in Europe when I went to school! AFAIAC I live in BRITAIN with it's own currency and weights and measures!!

As for the fishing.........The EU were given the rights to fish our waters in the 70s and have abided by EU rules, throwing back tons of unwanted or undersize dead fish! Overfished? yes, but not by british fishermen!! The complaints to the EU are legion, from using illegal nets to tandem trawling with the hefty amount being callously thrown back over the side - THAT's what isdepleting our fish stocks. We cannot support France, Portugal etc as we are a small nation.

[Alan Stubbs]

An answer to that statement of inaccurate excuses. If an auditor has audited books which don't add up, he is honour bound to report those figures to the committee,who then find out why the inaccuracies and sort them out (I learnt this running two businesses). The amended figures are then re-presented and then signed off!

All this rubbish of "points" that are wrong are excuses - The EU are not being held responsible for expenditure, whether it be MEPs (as in the UK) or some other reason.

When I went to school, my atlases clearly demarcated Europe and the Eastern Bloc. These new countries were not in Europe but the Eastern Bloc so that is changing. But as I stated - they were not in Europe when I went to school! AFAIAC I live in BRITAIN with it's own currency and weights and measures!!

As for the fishing.........The EU were given the rights to fish our waters in the 70s and have abided by EU rules, throwing back tons of unwanted or undersize dead fish! Overfished? yes, but not by british fishermen!! The complaints to the EU are legion, from using illegal nets to tandem trawling with the hefty amount being callously thrown back over the side - THAT's what isdepleting our fish stocks. We cannot support France, Portugal etc as we are a small nation.

 

You talk of rubbish without really addressing the serial list of rubbish you've inflicted on the forum with regularity....

 

 

 

We are a small nation? Our population is 60,975,000 (Source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=6). Land area: 93,278 sq mi (241,590 sq km); total area: 94,526 sq mi (244,820 sq km) Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108078.html, whereas France has a land mass more than double that of the UK and a population of 65073842. (source: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_population_of_France). Land Area: 545,630.00. Now my maths isn't great but that suggests a population of France some 4,000,000+ more than the UK. So Britain has a population less than 10% less than that of France, with a land mass fractionally less than half that of France. That means nothing other than France has more land per capita - and thus greater natural resource opportunity. The important thing is how it is utilised. Before you make a case using statistics, it helps a case to make sure you explain how the statistics are relevant to the argument. In your case, they aren't. Another example of KB opining based upon a lack of grasp of fact. What you don't make clear is where Britain are "supporting France, Portugal etc as we are a small nation".

 

Portugal is a much smaller country with a population of only 10,048,232 as of 2001, although how you equate this with Britain supporting Portugal without justifying the comment escapes me- particularly as Britain had a significant rebate of it's own EU budget contribution for many years. If I wasn't a decent sort of person, I'd be inclined to suggest that you're talking out of your ar5e.

 

Earlier you railed about the EU inflicting metric weights and measures on Britain. Sad to disappoint you, but SI units were the idea of Bishop John Wilkins in the 17th century, around 120 years before the French adopted them. Britain's adoption of SI units pre-dates our EU membership (or Common Market membership, if you must) by some 10 years before the 1975 referendum. Source: http://www.weeklygripe.co.uk/a486.asp. I think, to be generous, you're out of date KB. Others may see things less charitably.

 

As for the audit issue, the EU is responsible for funding rebates - these are disbursed by the individual member states. The claims for EU grants are where, in the main, the frauds are committed and this is a matter for the individual member states' police forces. You say you ran two businesses, but your lack of candour when dealing with fact leads me to consider that they weren't that successful and thus your comment about company audit is open to doubt, particularly when I checked about prosecution of auditors for not picking up on corporate fraud.

 

As for the fishing issue, you miss my point entirely, but that's no surprise. It is not a prerequisite that businesses try to make a living from commercial fishing and thus, whatever edicts handed down by the EU are largely irrelevant. The choice to fish is the company's / individual's. and thus they must take responsibility for their actions. Where I do agree with you is the CAP and Fisheries' policies are appalling and loaded to appease the national self interests of the French, but it is the lack of ability of Britain's politicians to persuade the EU to reform them. That's not an EU issue, it's a matter of shame that we are as a country, pretty useless at selling an argument.

 

I hate to disppoint you, but the term 'Eastern Bloc' is a political demarcation, not geographical, again, check your atlas and tell me I'm wrong afterwards. You said that " East Europeans (they weren't Europeans when I went to school!)" is simply wrong. They were European, aligned as a result of Russian occupation and Allied ineptitude to the USSR's expansionist plans. At your age, I'd have thought you'd have been aware of it - you were around when it happened- or has dementia set in? I noticed that you asked why they can't live in "Italy, France, Germany etc?", I am pleased to reiterate what other people, notably Captain Cojones, have said -THEY CAN!!!!!!!!!!!! and guess what...so can you. Isn't that a thrill for you? Just think, you can legitimately live and work in ANY EU member state. Yes, KB, you can even live in England. I suggest you have a lay down and recover from the shock of the revelation. You said in an earlier post that you wouldn't live in a country in Europe..what about re-emigrating to South Africa, or did you make yourself insufferable there?

Edited July 5, 2009 by Alan Stubbs

[kleinboet]

Alan Stubbs the only one making themselves insufferable is you, arguing a lost cause!

Your account of history is different to that taught in other schools, Britain wished to join the EEC but was blocked by France (under De Gaul), so the British government (to their eternal shame!) offered fishing rights to the EEC in exchange for membership.

As for weights and measures, yes, it was mentioned in the 17th Century, as was devolution of counties etc. They were very successful, weren't they?

The EU wanted to make it another "edict"!!

Political or not - my atlases at school showed the Eastern Bloc - NOT a part of Europe!!

Now on the "refugee" side. According to the UN (an organisation slightly larger than the EU - and has no trouble with their audit) the word refugee means someone who leaves a country to avoid a political situation which has become untenable (almost like here!) A refugee MUST settle in the FIRST safe country! Yet the rest of Europe have invented their own rules to keep them out, allowing them all to the UK where they get housing and money at the states cost!

Edited July 5, 2009 by kleinboet