Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

EU Fraud

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I think we should all be greatful to Paul van Buitenen who has risked his position to reveal the true extent of fraud within the EU.
The report highlights money paid for non-existent staff via a system of "service providers" or accountants.

He posted a short summary of the report on his website and could face a reprimand for breaching secrecy.

British Euro MP Chris Davies who leaked details of the document last month said he was delighted it was now public.

"Paul's here as a whistle-blower. They [senior parliament officials] will be angry about this but only because they will look stupid," he said.

This less that two months after the MEPs voted to cover up the report into fraud.

Is this a joke or what? What sort of parliamentary system is run on the basis that the members can vote to cover up their own illegal dealings? (Don't say "all of them"). But more importantly, what is the point of having European courts, if they can't force the publication of such reports?

Anyway, I only heard about this because on the news today:
MEPs vote not to employ relatives

I was particularly struck by this hilarious quote:
"If this is the price for maximum transparency, then it's a price worth paying for a package which sorts out all the problems," he says.

What a fucking joke.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Come on then, which of the pro-EU fanatics on here will be the first to defend this? I'm waiting....

    Well, doesn't all this put some things into perspective? Our own MPs dodgy expenses claims look like small beer compared to this. But what does anyone expect from a corrupt, failing institution such as the EU? Let's all remember that the EU's own auditors have refused to clear their accounts for 13 consecutive years now, on the grounds they don't know where hundreds of millions of pounds disappear to every single year. Any private company which ran its business in such a way would have been investigated by countless government watchdogs and most probably forced into administration. But because this is the European Union, the normal rules that apply to the rest of us are irrelevant.

    If I were Paul Van Buitenen today, I would not be too triumphant in mood, however. The omens, for those who dare to reveal the truth about the EU's workings, are not good. Just ask Marta Andreasen. She was hired as the EU's Chief Accountant in January 2002, but was suspended four months later after claiming the system was open to fraud. Yes, that's right - she was suspended for actually doing her job! Why the suspension? On the grounds that she had apparently flouted staff regulations by contacting MEPs rather than discussing her concerns with superiors. By superiors, we mean the EU Commissioner of the time, Neil Kinnock. He was brought in to deal with corruption in the EU. Naturally, he failed miserably in his brief, just like he'd failed in everything else he'd ever done in his life.

    Yes, this is a damning indictment of the European Parliament. But who can honestly say this is news to them? We have come to expect nothing better. The case for leaving this corrupt, dictatorial racket has just grown that little bit stronger.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Yes, this is a damning indictment of the European Parliament. But who can honestly say this is news to them? We have come to expect nothing better. The case for leaving this corrupt, dictatorial racket has just grown that little bit stronger.

    And I suppose fraud in the UK government is a case for disbanding the whole thing altogether, and changing to an anarchist society? No, this is evidence that the accountability of the European parliament need to be vastly improved. Van Buitenen spoke out because he wants to improve the system, not destroy it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And I suppose fraud in the UK government is a case for disbanding the whole thing altogether, and changing to an anarchist society? No, this is evidence that the accountability of the European parliament need to be vastly improved. Van Buitenen spoke out because he wants to improve the system, not destroy it.

    The difference being that we couldn't do without our own government. We're stuck with it, and we have to improve its failings. We could do fine without a European government.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Runnymede wrote: »
    The difference being that we couldn't do without our own government. We're stuck with it, and we have to improve its failings. We could do fine without a European government.

    No, you could say exactly the same thing about the UK government, and just rely on a government in your local area. The point is that if it's not Europe, it'll be your country's government. If it's not your government, it'll be your region/county/borough etc etc. Corruption in a central institution isn't an excuse to completely scrap it. And the existance of fraud in the EU is in no way an argument for its abolition, or the UK pulling out. Nor is that what this thread is about.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, you could say exactly the same thing about the UK government, and just rely on a government in your local area. The point is that if it's not Europe, it'll be your country's government. If it's not your government, it'll be your region/county/borough etc etc. Corruption in a central institution isn't an excuse to completely scrap it. And the existance of fraud in the EU is in no way an argument for its abolition, or the UK pulling out. Nor is that what this thread is about.


    No you couldn't. The local governments in all our areas would have trouble dealing with national issues such as defence for example. The point is we could do without the EU parliament whereas we couldn't do without Westminster.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Runnymede wrote: »
    No you couldn't. The local governments in all our areas would have trouble dealing with national issues such as defence for example. The point is we could do without the EU parliament whereas we couldn't do without Westminster.

    Well you can debate that all you want. The point I am making is that the existance of corruption is in no way an argument for abolishing something. And you don't seem to have explained any way in which it is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well you can debate that all you want. The point I am making is that the existance of corruption is in no way an argument for abolishing something. And you don't seem to have explained any way in which it is.

    I agree, I don't think it is either.

    But since we could do fine without the EU parliament, and since we have our own corrupt politicians to think about, it does raise the question of why we would want the burden of an unnecessary layer of corrupt politicians on top of that.
Sign In or Register to comment.