Caporegime
In other words, the Eurozone is not functioning properly and whenever anything doesn't work properly in Europe the solution from Brussels is more integration.
Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (March Poll)
- Thread starter Burnsy2023
- Start date
- Status
In other words, the Eurozone is not functioning properly and whenever anything doesn't work properly in Europe the solution from Brussels is more integration.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
It's amusing how you still end up quoting graphs and figures relying on Eurostat via NetRightDaily.
How is our economy like Iceland or Greece? Structure-wise, how can we obtain their presumed 'advantages' from outside the EU?
How can we influence the common market rules, without voting rights in key institutions, under EEA or EFTA arrangements?
More fundamentally, are we in the Euro, or have we magically become the signatory of the new Banking Union treaties? Nope. So the key plank of the Grexit scenario won't even apply to us.
And, the post-crash years being as they are, Greece still wants to remain a member of the Union, with unemployment on a downward trend in the graph you posted. Will it recover and fix its debt and bloated public sector overnight? No, but neither is it being failed by the EU. In fact, why act as a lender of last resort if you want to let an economy fail?
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
So you have nothing to say really, Mulder, and just have a compulsive need to spam this thread, without much reading, analytical or otherwise?
No cigar. But keep going off the deep end.
So the National Audit Office is somehow a fully paid-up branch of the EU, is it now?
Anyhow. You’re dodging the issue: Your ‘independent’ sources have not found anything at fault with the official records and stats, citing them as data sources. Nothing was hidden from their access, and they were able to get commentary both from the critics and officials on the subject. If there were no reliable audit, statistical and procedural information that could be referenced, we would not be having this conversation.
Now, in the MPs’ expenses scandal, the furore was over the fact that there was officially recorded information, but the FoI was stalled to get it in full. And so the officials who disagreed with the stalling leaked the state information to the media. On the contrary, in the case of Andreasen and the EU: she stated an opinion, initiated a tribunal hearing and lost her case on the basis of publically (even the proceeding of the tribunal are writ in public, lol) available information because she could not prove her claims were valid.
See the obvious difference and the flaw in your argument? In both cases the sources were indeed official. The data of this sensitive nature and detail is seldom (how could it be?) recorded from outside of the institutions, or their autonomous auditing branches/contractors, concerned.
Nonetheless, should you still be a ‘concerned citizen’, why not do the FoI equivalent at EU level yourself? Petition them for answers to your specific questions?
• http://www.asktheeu.org/ -- independent portal, which I expect FullFact might be using too
• https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/index.cfm?fuseaction=fmb&language=en – your favourite information source
Erm, they are actual improvements, plus more recommendations – showing our influence on the process. But let’s not get the facts get in the way of your daydream, Mulder.
What is convincing for you; an off-the-radar independent rightwing blogger? A material error rate of 0 (doesn’t exist in practice in large organisations)? You do realise that all the funds under discussion are liable to recovery regardless; and they do get recovered, which is why the actual fraud rate is tiny, and the material rate would be well below the set maximum limit if the reporting timeframes were different.
The reporting of this cash flow, from commitments to payments and back again for projects in question, falls between budgets, rolling on to the next reporting period, which is why rumour peddlers can spin their mills in the interim, decrying something that isn’t there in all honesty. As was said, nearly all the EU money (94-98+ percent) gets allocated and spent without material error, and the documents submitted for this comply with all the EU regulations, which is what the auditors report year-on-year.
No, it doesn’t make their opinion somehow trump actual accounting or the official statistics; especially if the information they choose to highlight, official yet again as it is, is partial, poorly cited, out of context or intentionally avoids querying for a rebuttal. Where this was lacking, especially for the Metro, I’ve located what they were referring to, with explanatory materials and original source documents in tow; for the sake of said balance you speak of.
Guess why these stories are quietly buried when they become invalidated by up-to-date developments?
But if you like media wonks, here’s one who has the same issues with your outlets, I do:
http://www.britishinfluence.org/it_s_the_british_media_that_needs_auditing
I’m sure him being on this side of the argument will make you rage even more.
No cigar. But keep going off the deep end.
So the National Audit Office is somehow a fully paid-up branch of the EU, is it now?
Anyhow. You’re dodging the issue: Your ‘independent’ sources have not found anything at fault with the official records and stats, citing them as data sources. Nothing was hidden from their access, and they were able to get commentary both from the critics and officials on the subject. If there were no reliable audit, statistical and procedural information that could be referenced, we would not be having this conversation.
Now, in the MPs’ expenses scandal, the furore was over the fact that there was officially recorded information, but the FoI was stalled to get it in full. And so the officials who disagreed with the stalling leaked the state information to the media. On the contrary, in the case of Andreasen and the EU: she stated an opinion, initiated a tribunal hearing and lost her case on the basis of publically (even the proceeding of the tribunal are writ in public, lol) available information because she could not prove her claims were valid.
See the obvious difference and the flaw in your argument? In both cases the sources were indeed official. The data of this sensitive nature and detail is seldom (how could it be?) recorded from outside of the institutions, or their autonomous auditing branches/contractors, concerned.
Nonetheless, should you still be a ‘concerned citizen’, why not do the FoI equivalent at EU level yourself? Petition them for answers to your specific questions?
• http://www.asktheeu.org/ -- independent portal, which I expect FullFact might be using too
• https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/index.cfm?fuseaction=fmb&language=en – your favourite information source
Erm, they are actual improvements, plus more recommendations – showing our influence on the process. But let’s not get the facts get in the way of your daydream, Mulder.
What is convincing for you; an off-the-radar independent rightwing blogger? A material error rate of 0 (doesn’t exist in practice in large organisations)? You do realise that all the funds under discussion are liable to recovery regardless; and they do get recovered, which is why the actual fraud rate is tiny, and the material rate would be well below the set maximum limit if the reporting timeframes were different.
The reporting of this cash flow, from commitments to payments and back again for projects in question, falls between budgets, rolling on to the next reporting period, which is why rumour peddlers can spin their mills in the interim, decrying something that isn’t there in all honesty. As was said, nearly all the EU money (94-98+ percent) gets allocated and spent without material error, and the documents submitted for this comply with all the EU regulations, which is what the auditors report year-on-year.
No, it doesn’t make their opinion somehow trump actual accounting or the official statistics; especially if the information they choose to highlight, official yet again as it is, is partial, poorly cited, out of context or intentionally avoids querying for a rebuttal. Where this was lacking, especially for the Metro, I’ve located what they were referring to, with explanatory materials and original source documents in tow; for the sake of said balance you speak of.
Guess why these stories are quietly buried when they become invalidated by up-to-date developments?
But if you like media wonks, here’s one who has the same issues with your outlets, I do:
http://www.britishinfluence.org/it_s_the_british_media_that_needs_auditing
I’m sure him being on this side of the argument will make you rage even more.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2014
- Posts
- 1,767
Poll Reset !!
- Status