Thread: Brexit - It's Still On!

Originally Posted by jabir

And to think we were in bed with these rats for decades!

that's what we have been saying since you joined

at least now, it's a win-win for everyone, no more English traitors in the EU parliament

Originally Posted by Troy

It would have made a little more sense to have formulated a plan, worked out the figures, and then pulled the trigger. The UK have gone about it arse over tit and are chasing ghosts, with very little with which to bargain.

What's to bargain? It appears that neither side has officially offered a figure for any final exit payment. No figures, no bargaining. Just rhetoric.

Originally Posted by Dartanian

it would be really appreciated if you could perhaps post some facts,instead of fabricating nonsense.

The verbose little tinker doesn't do facts, only bombastic and meandering rhetoric cultivated from a mollycoddled nucleus.

Originally Posted by jabir

Turn it around, and what will Frau do with her surplus cars and gadgets, or the surrender monkeys with their cheeses and wines that would have been destined for the deprived Brit masses?

Chinese, ever heard of them ? they love our wines and cheese, and all those new car toys for them

Originally Posted by jabir

Btw, you seem to view Brexit negotiations as a fight to the finish in order to dissuade further dissent, with a tangible winner even if that means losing an eye or limb, rather than sensible talks designed to ease the unprecedented and unpredictable burdens of both parties for a continuing future as neighbours. Not that it's noticeable!

it's a not a fight to dissuade further dissent, you read me wrong

it's about getting rid of you vermin at any costs

should have never been part of the EU, and this is about to be corrected. Let's hope Greece is next, and some other shitholes from Eastern Europe

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

Chinese, ever heard of them ? they love our wines and cheese, and all those new car toys for them



it's a not a fight to dissuade further dissent, you read me wrong

it's about getting rid of you vermin at any costs

should have never been part of the EU, and this is about to be corrected. Let's hope Greece is next, and some other shitholes from Eastern Europe

Let's hope what? Why do you suppose Frau consents to serial non-repayable multi-billion loans to basket case Greece, which only stunning EU levels of corruption and incompetence by unelected tyrants allowed to join in the first place, if not to keep it from default, or leaving with serious repercussions even by Socialist standards? And do consider this particular rot had set in long before Brexit.

How long do you suppose such levels of insanity can continue, esp as other countries start turning up with cap and razor in hand for a free money mountain?

So let's entertain your delusion and grant your wish that Greece leaves. How about Italy, Spain, Ireland, Portugal and the former Soviets? Could be forgiven for thinking you would like a USofEurope exclusive to the northern elites - quality over quantity - which is the exact opposite of the trend set by your own gods. Not a good Socialist, you, to promote a Union with more out than in, esp since your best case scenario translates to failure of the great European project.

Originally Posted by Neverna

What's to bargain? It appears that neither side has officially offered a figure for any final exit payment. No figures, no bargaining. Just rhetoric.

I doubt the official payment figures for Brexit will ever be known. They will be wrapped up with payments to stay in certain EU groups and whatever trade deals are made as a face-saving exercise for both the UK and EU. It's one of the main reasons the UK wanted to have trade talks in parallel.

I'm not happy with the consequences either way and think a permanent future in Asia is the likely outcome for me.

The figures are well rehearsed, the EU considers £60 billion the more equable given the quinquennial nature of their budgetary cycles and contingency costs for long standing commitments whereas the arsehole retards in the Brexit team stupidly seem to be arguing any liability should be limited to the two years between article 50 notification and departure i.e. £20 billions.

Typically, the money grubbing pikey English are taking the piss.

indeed, first they failed to pay their bills, and then expect some kind of wonderful agreement on the way out

clearly delusional

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

indeed, first they failed to pay their bills, and then expect some kind of wonderful agreement on the way out

clearly delusional

The UK is one of the few members to pay its bills in full and on time. It also applies EU regulations quite rigidly.
When you look at the record of other EU states, it’s easy to see why they want the U.K. to remain.
Its also the reason why EU accounts can never be presented for audit. Too many members shamed by their lack of financial bona fides, and base corruption by EU non elected twats.

Aw don't say that, it might splinter his delusions.

Which all goes to prove my point that EU accounts ARE presented for audit.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Which all goes to prove my point that EU accounts ARE presented for audit.

Perhaps you'd like to provide your view on the post,rather than avoiding the facts.

Originally Posted by Dartanian

Switch hope you don't mind me answering for you.

I'm sure Bob won't mind some facts.

Is the EU’s budget ‘signed off’ by auditors?


In brief
Claim

The EU’s accounts haven’t been signed off for years.


Conclusion

Auditors say the accounts have been accurate since 2007. But they have historically recorded significant errors in how money is paid since their first audit in 1995. In the most recent year, they found a significant part of the EU’s spending was largely error-free for the first time.




It’s often argued that the EU’s budget both has and hasn’t been signed off by auditors for years.
Both sides have a point. The EU’s Court of Auditors regularly “signs off”—in its own words—the reliability of the accounts themselves, and has given them a clean bill of health for the last decade.
But it has consistently found significant errors in how the money is paid out since it began giving opinions in 1995, for the 1994 EU financial year.
The exception to this is the most recent year. The latest report has, for the first time ever, found a significant amount of payments to be largely error-free. It found that “Payments for 2016 were legal and regular, except for cost reimbursement payments”.
Two opinions, not one

The European Court of Auditors checks the EU’s accounts and delivers verdicts on them annually. It actually gives two different opinions on them: whether they’re accurate and reliable, and to what extent there’s evidence that money is being received or paid in error.
The auditors give a clean opinion on the accuracy and reliability of the accounts when they present a true and fair view of the EU’s finances and follow the rules of financial reporting. This has been the case since 2007.
If they’re mostly fine, but have some problems, the auditors give a qualifiedopinion. This was the case before 2007. If they have extensive problems, they give an adverse opinion on the reliability of the accounts. This has never happened.
The same opinions are delivered on the ‘regularity’ of the accounts— mainly whether the payments are free from significant errors. Until 2016, the Court of Auditors had always given an adverse opinion on this ever since it started giving opinions in 1995.
However, the most recent report gives a qualified opinion that “A significant part of the 2016 expenditure audited was not affected by a material level of error”.
So what does all this say about the EU’s accounts? The numbers accurately reflect what’s actually happened—it’s just that some of it shouldn’t have happened in the first place.
Accurate in 2016, but errors persist

In 2016 the EU spent €136 billion—or about £110 billion, at the average exchange rate for 2016. That's a few billion less than what the UK spent on the NHS. The Court said the EU’s accounts in 2016: “present, in all material respects, a true and fair view of the EU’s financial results for the year and its assets and liabilities at the end of the year.… We were therefore able to give a clean opinion on the reliability of (i.e. ‘sign off’) the accounts, as we have done every year since 2007.
But it did find that 3.1% of EU spending was subject to error. This is slightly lower than in previous years, but as long as the estimated error is above a threshold of 2%, it’s considered “material”.
However, the “entitlement payments” (rewards for meeting conditions, rather than payments for costs incurred) were found to have an error level below the 2% threshold.
This meant that, for the first time since 1994, the accounts were given a “qualified”, rather than “adverse”, opinion. The auditors found that: “A significant part of the 2016 expenditure audited was not affected by a material level of error”.
Error is not always the same as fraud or waste

Just because some money is paid in error doesn’t mean people all the people involved have deliberately tried to defraud the EU.
A small minority of the cases that the auditors look at each year involve suspected fraud. The UK’s Public Accounts Committee of MPs has concluded for years that the complexity of the EU’s spending programmes, which creates misunderstandings, contributes towards these errors.
It also doesn’t necessarily mean the money was ‘wasted’, just that it wasn’t paid out according to the rules. One way to run afoul of the rules, for instance, is to award an EU-funded contract directly without holding a proper bidding process. Even though the rules haven’t been followed, it's not always the case that another firm would have been able to put in a lower bid.
The Court explains:
“Our estimate of the level of error is not a measure of fraud, inefficiency or waste. It is an estimate of the money that should not have been paid out because it was not used in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations.”
The most common type of error is when people claim for costs they’re ineligible for, followed by procurement errors like the one discussed above.
It’s not all the EU’s fault, and it gets some of the money back

While the EU is ultimately responsible for its own budget, the majority of the spending is implemented by member countries. Both the EU and member states make similar amounts of error.
In the UK’s case, the Public Accounts Committee has criticised the government for designing programmes which add to the complexity of EU spending, and showing a “distinct lack of urgency” in tackling that complexity and reducing the penalties the UK needs to pay back to the EU.
It can take the EU several years to make corrections to the money paid out in error. It estimates that between 2009 and 2015 it recovered just over 2% of the average payments.
Isn't it nice to have the whole picture?
​By Joseph O'Leary

I am not familiar with accounting principles, processes and regulations, but assuming the above is accurate, and as an example, would the Brit taxman accept similar serial returns with the same reasons given for not being fully signed off, by EU plc?

duplicate

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Which all goes to prove my point that EU accounts ARE presented for audit.

"Presented" for audit, real amusing, of course they're 'presented' for audit, which 'proves' nothing if you bother reading your own posts.

I suggest a string of abuse to serve as an adequate distraction this time, again, DrBoob.

just ignore him, everybody else does.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Which all goes to prove my point that EU accounts ARE presented for audit.

To their own internal auditors, who have rarely if ever signed off on them due to corrupt financial practices. Semantics bob and you know it.
Thank you Dartanian, for comprehensive view of the only available audit evidence.
Hardly convincing is it?

Originally Posted by Dartanian

Perhaps you'd like to provide your view on the post,rather than avoiding the facts.

Why should I provide a view on something I've made no comment on? Switch said there were no audits. I said he was wrong. He WAS wrong. Those are the facts.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Why should I provide a view on something I've made no comment on? Switch said there were no audits. I said he was wrong. He WAS wrong. Those are the facts.

Switch Is hardly wrong as the court of Auditors,have hardly signed anything off,their lack of data which also includes corruption which is estimated at,depending where you look is anything from £125 billion to an astounding £781 billion.

Though the EU estimates that only 4.4% of the funds issued will be Misused.

In English, please? While you are doing that go back and read your lenghty cut and paste, keep doing that until you understand what it says.

keep pulling straws, I will leave you to your ignorance.

Amazingly your post vanished before.

Originally Posted by Dartanian

keep pulling straws, I will leave you to your ignorance.

Amazingly your post vanished before.

run away then, little man