Does the European Parliament have to sack the Commission again to get the EU accounts straight?
As I wrote on this blog a few days ago, the European Court of Auditors have refused to give the European Union's accounts a clean bill of health for the nineteenth consecutive year.
It may be an indication of concern about this that my post on the subject, "The EU wasted 6 billion of taxpayers' money last year - official!" quickly became one of the five most read posts in the eight-year lifespan of this blog.
A few years ago Copeland Borough Council took a couple of years to get its' accounts sorted out and approved by the District Auditors. This was (quite rightly) seen as grounds for very grave concern about whether the millions of pounds of taxpayer's money spent by the council were being properly managed. Even the Labour administration of Copeland, which there are objective reasons to regard as one of the three worst run councils in the country, took the matter seriously, bucked their ideas up, made it clear that heads would roll if the accounts were not sorted out and eventually got them into a fit state to be approved by the Auditors.
My four years as a member of the opposition on Copeland Borough Council were some of the most frustrating of my life, and I don't want to give the impression that they handled their budget or resource management particularly well, but by comparison with the EU they were fiscal responsibility incarnate!
If one of the worst run councils in Britain takes a bad Audit report covering a few tens of millions of pounds of public money seriously enough to make sure they get it sorted out within two or three years, what on earth are we to make of the fact that the European Commission appears far more blase about failing to get a clean audit report for billions of pounds of public money for nineteen consecutive years?
One of the few things the European Commission have said in their defence which contains some element of reality is that national governments also need to do more to ensure that EU money is properly accounted for. This is entirely true, but should not get the Commission off the hook.
Perhaps the most depressing aspect of this sorry saga is that when researching it you have to look carefully at the date of any of your sources because when you do a search for a particular speech, report or article on one year and you'll find similar speeches, reports or articles making almost exactly the same points in multiple previous years.
Equally depressing is the sign that the Commission is trying to get the Court of Auditors to moderate their comments, though fortunately they do not appear to be succeeding.
Ingeborg Gräßle, a senior German MEP who is close to Angela Merkel, Ingeborg Gräßle, an EPP parliamentarian and respected member of the European Parliament’s budgetary control committee, has accused the European Commission of trying to influence the Auditors' report and said that "numerous questions arise" about this.
It's not just the Commission who are doing this either.
A couple of months ago, Herman Van Rompuy, the President of the European Council (e.g. the representative of member governments) was caught on film asking the European Court of Auditors to tone down their reports so as to permit more “nuanced reporting” of misspending.
“We have not nuanced our report,” he replied. “The duty of the ECA is to speak the truth.”
Pleased to hear it, but it is the duty of the Commission and the Council to listen when the ECA speaks the truth, and I'm worried about whether they are paying enough attention.
You can read Waterfield's article on the subject here.
In March 1999 the European parliament got so upset with the failure of certain members of the Santer commission to correct a culture of financial mismanagement and obstruction of auditors that they threatened to use their power to sack the entire commission. The Santer commission jumped before they were pushed and resigned en masse.
The ECA report for last year found an "Error rate" of money not adequately accounted for of 4.8% of the European Union's £117 billion budget. That is far too high to be acceptable.
Does the European Parliament have to threaten to sack the Barroso Commission to get the matter taken seriously?
It may be an indication of concern about this that my post on the subject, "The EU wasted 6 billion of taxpayers' money last year - official!" quickly became one of the five most read posts in the eight-year lifespan of this blog.
A few years ago Copeland Borough Council took a couple of years to get its' accounts sorted out and approved by the District Auditors. This was (quite rightly) seen as grounds for very grave concern about whether the millions of pounds of taxpayer's money spent by the council were being properly managed. Even the Labour administration of Copeland, which there are objective reasons to regard as one of the three worst run councils in the country, took the matter seriously, bucked their ideas up, made it clear that heads would roll if the accounts were not sorted out and eventually got them into a fit state to be approved by the Auditors.
My four years as a member of the opposition on Copeland Borough Council were some of the most frustrating of my life, and I don't want to give the impression that they handled their budget or resource management particularly well, but by comparison with the EU they were fiscal responsibility incarnate!
If one of the worst run councils in Britain takes a bad Audit report covering a few tens of millions of pounds of public money seriously enough to make sure they get it sorted out within two or three years, what on earth are we to make of the fact that the European Commission appears far more blase about failing to get a clean audit report for billions of pounds of public money for nineteen consecutive years?
One of the few things the European Commission have said in their defence which contains some element of reality is that national governments also need to do more to ensure that EU money is properly accounted for. This is entirely true, but should not get the Commission off the hook.
Perhaps the most depressing aspect of this sorry saga is that when researching it you have to look carefully at the date of any of your sources because when you do a search for a particular speech, report or article on one year and you'll find similar speeches, reports or articles making almost exactly the same points in multiple previous years.
Equally depressing is the sign that the Commission is trying to get the Court of Auditors to moderate their comments, though fortunately they do not appear to be succeeding.
Ingeborg Gräßle, a senior German MEP who is close to Angela Merkel, Ingeborg Gräßle, an EPP parliamentarian and respected member of the European Parliament’s budgetary control committee, has accused the European Commission of trying to influence the Auditors' report and said that "numerous questions arise" about this.
It's not just the Commission who are doing this either.
A couple of months ago, Herman Van Rompuy, the President of the European Council (e.g. the representative of member governments) was caught on film asking the European Court of Auditors to tone down their reports so as to permit more “nuanced reporting” of misspending.
“Your reports are not released into a void but into the rough and tumble of political life and media reporting,” he said. “Every year, they generate headlines that ‘yet again the EU’s accounts have not been signed off’, with deceptive allegations of fraud and mismanagement. You and I know that such headlines can be misleading.
“Given this media handling of information, and its impact on public opinion in some countries, the court might want to give some further thought as to how it can encourage more nuanced reporting.
“In the end we are all responsible for Europe and its image… In times of crisis, it is more vital than ever to foster confidence. We should also be teaching, to convince Europeans and demonstrate clearly that Europe is not the source of problems, but the solution.”The Brussels correspondent of the Telegraph, Bruno Waterfield, asked Vitor Caldeira, the president of the European Court of Auditors, about Mr Van Rompuy’s comments and whether his auditors would be more biddable in the interests of polishing up the EU’s rather tarnished image.
“We have not nuanced our report,” he replied. “The duty of the ECA is to speak the truth.”
Pleased to hear it, but it is the duty of the Commission and the Council to listen when the ECA speaks the truth, and I'm worried about whether they are paying enough attention.
You can read Waterfield's article on the subject here.
In March 1999 the European parliament got so upset with the failure of certain members of the Santer commission to correct a culture of financial mismanagement and obstruction of auditors that they threatened to use their power to sack the entire commission. The Santer commission jumped before they were pushed and resigned en masse.
The ECA report for last year found an "Error rate" of money not adequately accounted for of 4.8% of the European Union's £117 billion budget. That is far too high to be acceptable.
Does the European Parliament have to threaten to sack the Barroso Commission to get the matter taken seriously?
Comments
what say you Mr Barroso?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10436218/David-Cameron-must-embrace-Churchills-vision-of-United-States-of-Europe.html
Oh....I see
He appears to have forgotten when he appeals to the shade of Churchill that although Winnie thought a United States of Europe would be a good idea, he didn't at that time think Britain should be part of it!
I for one would gladly oblige him
What would a no vote mean? would it be legally binding so it cant be overturned by parliament after they reached a conclusion of what the No vote meant? assuming it is, then where? what sort of trade agreement should we have? do we go for EFTA/EEA or do we set up our own deals, bearing in mind most deals are not with the UK for example the china trade deal is between the EU and China, we could keep those if in EEA, we could also keep the single market too. what would a yes vote mean, what exactly will we reclaim? which powers are to be negotiated? how do we change for example the free movemeent of people without a major treaty change, or indeed the free movement of capital, to prevent "Aggresive tax avoidance" (i dont like that term, its like "agressive sticking to the speed limit")
When will the negotiations start? what if the EU refuse to negotiate before we force them to by invoking article 50?
lots of things i think need to be answered before this issue can be used as a pledge in a GE.
Although perhaps the election promises of the current administration should not be taken too seriously. After all i do recall a Cameron - Paxman interview on 23 April 2010.
DC said and I quote "We have absolutely no plans to raise VAT. Our first Budget is all about recognising we need to get spending under control rather than putting up tax."
Nice stuff, just what i wanted to hear, but what happened in the Emergency budget just after the election?
The PM himself was forced to admit to Andrew Marr that we would need a "substantial re-writing" of the EU treaties before the referendum could be called.
now, after the Euro elections next year, the first job is to approve a new commission, it wont be until end of 2014 that it will be possible to start to organise a convention. so we are now looking at about mid 2015, same time as the UK GE campaign. Now we could expect an IGC in early 2017, it could even convlude before the end of 2017, with the signing being in 2018. Then it would need to be ratified, requiring a referendum in the UK and Ireland.
Its for these reasons I dont think we will see an In-Out referendum this side of the 2020 general election, at least not one on a re-negotiated EU