UKIP anyone?

[Gromit]

Politicians accused of misusing public money will receive hundreds of thousands of pounds in pensions and benefits as part of a �20 million payoff for British MEPs who retire this week.

� Ashley Mote, the former UKIP MEP who was jailed for benefit fraud, has a pension worth �174,968 and will receive a transitional payment of �32,382. Both men are in their seventies and can draw the final-salary pensions immediately.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics /article6410920.ece

� Tom Wise, the former UKIP MEP who faces trial for fraud and money-laundering related to his expenses, has a pension valued at �235,000 and will get a �32,382 transitional payment.

[jake-the-peg]

Tom Wise has been released on bail after an investigation by the European Anti-Fraud office.

Seems like the EU is taking a tougher line on MEP corruption than Westminster.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8020577.stm

Now where's VHG with his usual "The EU is corrupt" line?

[R1Geezer]

I'll take hsi place if you like jake, just one point, remind us all how long it's been since the EU commission has been able to find an accountant to validate it's accounts.

Making one example does not mean it is not instintutionally corrupt.

If anyone thinks the recent MP's exes expose is bad wait til the EU equavalent comes out!

[VHG]

>Now where's VHG with his usual "The EU is
>corrupt" line?

Well if you think it ISN'T corrupt you are very naive.

Here is an article from Accountancy Age (2008) which says the Dutch finance minister refused to sign off the accounts for the 12th year running.

The reports says "It also found that 12% of the �24bn regional fund budget had been paid out erroneously in 2006".

TWELVE PERCENT !!!!!!

It goes on to say "While only a fraction may have been misused, the states of the EU were unable to prove that they had sent the money to the right recipients".

Read that again"

"UNABLE TO PROVE THAT THEY HAD SENT THE MONEY TO THE RIGHT RECIPIENTS".

The EU is one huge badly run, inept, corrupt organization that will be the long term ruin of Europe.

[VHG]

Whoops, here is the link

http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/n ews/2209307/dutch-refuse-sign-eu-accounts

[VHG]

And how about this

Bulgaria probes hundreds of farmers for EU money fraud

Bulgarian prosecutors said they have launched probes into "several hundreds" of cases of suspected fraud related to EU farming subsidies.

Some of the farmers are suspected of exaggerating the size of their land in order to pocket higher subsidies, as suggested by a report by the European Audit Office.

Agriculture Minister Valeri Tsvetanov said in a recent newspaper interview that 333 farmers had exaggerated the size of their land in their subsidy applications in 2007

End of quote

So that is OVER THREE HUNDRED FARMERS committing fraud, in one country (that they know about) !!!!!

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1243944123.2 5

[rojash]

Well your second example wouldn't lead me to the conclusion that the EU is corrupt - rather that a bunch of Bulgarian farmers are corrupt, and are defrauding the EU.

[VHG]

Here is an article entitled

100 EXAMPLES OF EU FRAUD AND WASTE

http://tinyurl.com/lejgt9

[VHG]

>Well your second example wouldn't lead me to the >conclusion that the EU is corrupt

I use the term "EU" as in the organization, but also the countries and people who work in and with it.

Asking Bulgarian farmers (or any other farmer) to say how much land they have is like asking British MPs to fill out their own expenses, it is open to "exaggeration".

And if the EU either dont or wont check if the farmers are telling the truth that makes them inept, and making fraud so much easier.

The problem is if you have layer upon layer of bureaucracy it is open to immense fraud, and the EU bureaucracy is the worst type of bureaucracy, wanting their finger in everything but contributing almost nothing.

At some point in the future the whole EU "mess"will implode when people (and countries and businesses) realise it gains them almost nothing but costs them a lot.

[rov1200]

You don't like UKIP! You don't like referendums! Maybe its because of the negative attitudes that we are in this mess. The do nothing party would fit the bill.

[Gromit]

The 'let's have a referendum party' and UKIP are the same thing. We had a referendum about staying in Europe, why can't you accept we voted Yes. Do you just want to have Referendums until you get the decision you want.

There is a lot which is wrong with how the EU is run, but UKIP are not going to solve it.

[R1Geezer]

We had a referendum on the common Market, not the EEC, EC, EU or indeed the United states of Europe. It's like a kid getting permission to buy a moped and going out and getting a Ferrari!

Gromit you have excelled even your usual high standards of Tw&tery !

[Gromit]

iIt's like a kid getting permission to buy a moped and going out and getting a Ferrari!

No it isn't.

If you join something, you do not re-access your membership every five minutes. For example, we joined NATO in 1948 to repell the Russians, but the organisation and its role has changed dramatically since then, but we don't have referendums about leaving. Did we have a referendum when we sent British NATO troops to Bosnia or Afghanistan?

[Davethedog]

When did we have a referendum about staying in Europe?

We had one about going in nack in the 70's

[Gromit]

Davethedog

The Conservatives took us into Europe in 1973 without a referedum. When Labour got in they gave the people a referendum in 1975 whether to leave or stay.

67% voted to stay in.

Some people never accepted that result and everytime the European community develops the treaty they call for us to leave.

[Davethedog]

Yep right.

However we signed up for a common agricultural policy not the sprawling bureaucracy we have now.

Having said that we cannot leave now, the alternative would be economic disaster (I know) but worse.

AND having said that I will vote UKIP tomorrow but no chance in a GE.

Gotta protest someway

[Davethedog]

I suggest you research the financial implications - before you ask the question.

Don't believe the hype - a heck of a lot of of our jobs, finance rely on being in the EEC. You have to have trade partners.

If it made sense don't you think one of the main political parties would be on it?

[Gromit]

LucyThomas7

It was no coincidence that as our Empire began to wane and we no longer had our own market to trade with, that Britain started to seek trading agreements with countries closer to home in Europe.

In 1959 we signed the Stockholm Convention and in 1961 the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC). All was going well until De Gaulle kicked us in the teeth in 1963 when he vetoed our EEC membership.