The EU’s financial demands

Sources for quantifying the obligations at the date of withdrawal:
The amounts for items (1), (3) and (4) should be extracted from the consolidated accounts of the
Union established at the time of withdrawal and audited by the Court of Auditors.

How many decades is it since the Court signed off on the audit?

26 thoughts on “The EU’s financial demands”

  1. “No–fuck off” is the only statement that need be made in regard of the EU’s attempted thievery.

    These demands are dropped and talks remain in suspension until they are.

    Start withdrawing and returning our troops home for re-training and re-supply. Cut welfare to boost UK military spending and up our supply of missiles ten-fold–esp anti-ship missiles.

    No more migrants to be taken in and the adoption of a clearly stated UK govt policy to bring about the end of the EU “as soon as viable”.

    Let them see we are serious.

  2. How many decades is it since the Court signed off on the audit?

    My favourite point as soon as the pro-EU brigade start up. Even Pwc refused to sign the pile of lies that is the EU accounts.

  3. …but thinking on. If this is in the exit agreement, surely a crowd-funded activist could go to court to prevent the UK paying anything until the audited accounts show up?

    Could make a fun spectacle…

  4. On the subject of (Doom, Doom, do-do-do-DOOM!) The Accounts, Is it not the case that the accounts have be n signed off but with so many reservations as to make the signing-off worthless?

  5. On the subject of (Doom, Doom, do-do-do-DOOM!) The Accounts, Is it not the case that the accounts have been signed off but with so many reservations as to make the signing-off worthless?

  6. Biggie–The European Court of Arseholes is an EU in-house operation. Do they do anybody else’s audits ? Just to prove they are actually capable of an honest one?

    If they had let Al Capone do his own audit the Feds would have saved loads of cash spent on keeping him in Sing Sing.

    Of course –the Court of Fat Owls are independent–of course. So , presumably the Eurotrash explained this little lot away –also 2014 the same year as their “signed off” accounts.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/11209248/EU-auditors-refuse-to-sign-off-more-than-100billion-of-its-own-spending.html

  7. @Fecks

    But each year, when your favourite Fake News outlet claims he said it’s all dodgy and he won’t sign it off, then it’s Ex Cathedra.

    Funny how people can be trusted and unimpeachable experts when they support your view of things, and suddenly become CM snowflake leftist scum spouting cockrot when they don’t.

  8. Still an in house operation Biggie.

    As for fake news and liars the scum of the EU stand second to none in the peddling of untruths.

    I have no great trust in an increasingly MC/CM rag like the BluLabourGraph. But I see no need to accept your Caught of Fat Owls as being one iota more reliable.

    There is a lot more lying (EU) scum on the continent than there are liars at the Telegraph offices. And liars paid far more handsomely as well.

  9. At the risk of the usual torrent of pointless abuse from Ecks, I shall point out that BiG is right. Then add that it would be extraordinary for anyone else to make it a major public announcement that the auditors had approved the accounts.

  10. As far as I know EU budgets are set seven years in advance so we should in principle continue to pay in and take out what we agreed.

    This continuation can only be allowed to continue if the UK and the EU can agree a fair division of the assets that have been acquired during the course of UK membership.

    If there is no agreed fair division of assets then payments must stop the moment we leave.

  11. John 77–Any abuse from me is never pointless.

    When you say Biggie is “right” what exactly do you mean?

    Are you confirming that the Fat Owls report exists and says what Biggie says it says? I never doubted that. Or are you saying that what this report asserts is correct as a matter of fact?

    I am quite sure that creatures paid for by the EU will endorse the EU. Regardless of actual cash realities.

    The chief accountant was sacked for declaring the crookery of the EU and –by obvious extension of the Caught of Fat Owls themselves. Since only their corruption could make possible the corruption of their parent body. And we know beyond all doubt that the EU is an utterly corrupt crock of shite. Which has extensive organised crime connections most esp in its southern nether regions.

    Of course since her employers own Civil Service Tribunal said she was not wrongfully dismissed–BiG surprise– then it MUST be that the EU ‘s accounts can’t be a pile of lying shite . Must it not?

  12. As i understand this is because the EC accounts are consolidated and would have to signed off as one. When was the last year the NAO had no reservation on any part of the UK central gov budget? So you need a quantitative analysis in order to properly sneer ….

  13. BiG

    Let me quote the good lady word for word from your link above:

    First, we have “signed off” the 2014 EU accounts. They are reliable and we have issued a “clean” audit opinion to that effect. We also conclude that the collection of EU revenue was free from material error.

    That said, there is a persistently high level of payment errors, which means too much money is still not spent in accordance with the EU’s financial rules.

    The overall estimated error rate for payments in 2014 was 4.4%, and it has been stable for the last three years.

    Again, all operational expenditure was affected by a material level of error of more than 2%. Only the institutions’ administrative expenditure was not subject to a material level of error.

    I’ve not looked into their set up at all, but ordinarily, if there is material error, then a “qualified” audit report is provided (not a “clean” audit report).

    Having said “clean”, she then accepts that there is material error in all areas of expenditure except admin (ie, material error affects the overwhelming majority of the budget).

    Hence, it does appear as if she has concerns with regard to “material” error (and she is not hiding it). The fact that she has used the word “clean” doesn’t change that.

    As I said, I haven’t delved any further – if any of you know better then great.

    Oh, and this made me laugh:

    “We also conclude that the collection of EU revenue was free from material error.”

    Gosh, very well done indeed – just 28 “blue chip” clients…..

    “Accounts don’t “pass” audits, there are always findings.”

    An audit report is either unqualified (ie “clean”) or qualified. She has said it’s clean, but then appeared to explain why there are material qualifications..;)

    As I say, I haven’t looked any deeper, anyone with specific knowledge on what’s been going on here can correct me?

  14. @ PF
    A “material amount” in accountancy-speak when deciding whether you have to provide segmental information separatrly for this segment is something greater than or equal to 10% of revenue or dapital employed or profit. No, seriously, it is!
    However she is not ignoring the 4.4% on the grounds that it is small. She is recording how much the EU received and paid and analysing it. She says that the amounts recorded as paid are the amounts that were paid. *Then* she notes that 4.4% of these payments should not have been made.
    The amounts received and spent have been accurately recorded by the EU even though €6billion of that was stolen by fraudsters.

  15. John77

    With respect, it’s not 10%! Simply in that if by revenue you mean turnover, then turnover and profit will give different percentages.

    The reality (what weight given to criteria, such as T/O, PBT, capital, etc) usually varies / depends on whether the operation / business is a normal trading model, more capital intensive (investment), the spend against budget model (ie there is no “PBT”), or,whatever.

    But the thing here – and I fuly accept that I may be misunderstanding her – is that she appears to tell us what the European Court of Auditors regard materiality to be, in this context for the EU budget: being 2% of its expenditure. It’s very generalistic I agree (total / segments). She has a problem with the allocation of >4% or more of the budget, which (it looks to me) is why she is referring to it in her report?

    Unless you’ve access to something that spells it out more succinctly? I’m being lazy (actually just busy), as otherwise I should go and hunt down the detailed report.

    Yes, completely agree otherwise. Fraudulently spent indeed..:)

    Hence following through: As to whether that’s an unqualified audit report, do the accounts state that the expenditure was spent fraudulently. If they didn’t say that, then it appears to me that she must be qualifying her report? But if the accounts said “yes, loads of marble installed at the mayor’s new private holiday residence” etc, then she can tick it and say the accounts are true and fair! And your final comment suggests that you think it is the latter..:) So, cleanly signed off..?!

  16. @ PF
    Sorry, badly phrased – if either its revenue or its profit./loss or its assets comprises more than 10% of group total, then its rersults have to be reported separately.
    IFRS 8 Paragraph 13

    She is signing off on the EU accounts recording what *did* happen, not on what *ought to have* happened.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *