How's that a reason to leave the EU, considering the benefits of free trade, our security cooperation and inward investment we get back?
It's just an indicative example of how the EU is a bloated bureaucracy, and is willing to spend £130 million of its peoples money (including British money) on shifting offices (people, their files, their staff) 300 miles back and forth once a month. I mean, how crazy and wasteful is that? But it doesn't stop, as France will always veto it.
Here's an another example, a system which is (now) clearly much better in the UK. Quote from The Economist here.
"The system of MEPs’ expenses, for example, is scandalous: no receipts need be produced, there is little auditing and employment of family members is common"
Yes, there are silly, historical arrangements we and MEPs want reformed, here and in the EU. Yes, it costs money while our MPs, MEPs, leaders and mandarins wrangle over the details of reform. But no, it isn't the end of the world.
It's not the end of the world, but it is another reason to want to leave the EU.
As per above links, the EU auditors suspect that about 0.2% of the EU's budget is potentially subject to fraudulent misuse. The UK? 0.38% on a significantly larger budget! Qualifying statements aren't the same as refusing to clear accounts. We get them too, and publish things like this:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...a/file/118530/annual-fraud-indicator-2012.pdf
Has everyone already let go of the MPs expenses scandal and the Westminster upkeep issue? Short memories indeed.
As above at least the UK acted on public pressure and made improvements in the wake of the expenses scandal. The EU represents too many varied interests and refuses to change. The further power is away from you the more unable you are to affect it. The 60+ million people lobbying parliament in the UK is far more likely to make them do something rather than 73 MEPs out of 751 trying to voice the interests of the UK.
Which could be considered material error, evasion, misuse, waste etc. The country does need to keep going, though. So does the EU.
If the EU "needs" to keep going (and a lot of people agree with you) then to what end? I think everyone would agree; a European superstate. I for one do not want the UK to be subsumed into that.
Hence sensible targets and thresholds are set -- no large system is error free, nor would it be practical to spend more money to chase down certain things, above the cost of said targets. But again, this isn't covered up, and the accounts are passed with guidance in the public domain.
On balance, they appear to be better at this whole accountability thing re budget money than we are, as the evidence stands!
In the UK you're quoting the cost of fraud (i.e. stealing) from central Government at £2.5bn. The EU's auditors found "material errors" in £109bn out of £117bn spending in 2013. See here. That's not stealing, that's them making "errors" in their own spending. So on the evidence, I'd suggest they are significantly less accountable.
We lose more from tax fraud etc, but the EU doesn't directly raise taxes so you can't fairly count that. I'd suspect if they did have to maintain a detailed record of everyone's earnings/assets/status (i.e. HMRC, but Europe wide!!) they would lose a lot more!
