Walterp
Member
- Location
- Pembrokeshire
Why do you believe that the EU does not keep accounts, when it publishes them and they are available for anyone to inspect?
-
Welcome to The Farming Forum!
As part of this update, we have made a change to the login and registration process. If you are experiences any problems, please email [email protected] with the details so we can resolve any issues.
Agriculture Post Brexit The Bright Blue View
- Thread starter Frank-the-Wool
- Start date
But never been passed by the auditors
Walterp
Member
- Location
- Pembrokeshire
A lovely, fat, fly-blown lie.
1. The EU accounts are published annually.
2. They are audited.
3. They are completely accurate. That is a big claim, best qualified by explaining that since 2007 they are 100% audited and accurate, but that they have historically recorded significant errors in how money is paid since their first audit in 1995.
deleted user 837354
Member
LOL, having them audited by your own internal organisation does not pass muster with me I am afraid.
deleted user 837354
Member
Still going on, this article is from 2014.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...more-than-100billion-of-its-own-spending.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...more-than-100billion-of-its-own-spending.html
Walterp
Member
- Location
- Pembrokeshire
But how biased is your approach - you begin by doubting that accounts are kept, when the actuality is that they are produced, published, audited and open to challenge. And they have been challenged over the years, as you probably already know.
The interesting thing, to me, is why (when you know this) do you make the obviously inaccurate claim that no accounts are kept? How do you make that mental leap?
Why not try another angle?
The EU Commission employs c.32,000 people altogether, to administer the largest and richest trading bloc on the planet, with the biggest budget and a huge populace (500 million people). How would you expect that to compare with, say, a large English municipality, as a good measure of efficiency?
Take Greater Manchester, which has 2.7 million people living there.
Would you like to guess which has more employees?
RobFZS
Member
Pointless analogy, how many road sweepers and social care providers does the EU have? 2 different types of public servants. utterly thick thing to compare really
What is totally pointless and political, is moving between Strasbourg and Brussels every other week.
He will try to make out it's a lie
RobFZS
Member
He'll come up with how they do such a great job, and we couldn't do such a mammoth task ourselves while keeping the money spent in our economy.
the old 'we've always done it this way so why change' ideology.
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
I've been thinking about this overnight as the weather kept me awake 
A key area for making this work wiould be how the delivery of outcomes is quantified.
For a carbon sequestration scheme it should be quite straight forward - How much biomass has grown and so how much carbon has been absorbed.
For an air quality scheme it could be much more complex. Would it require specialist scientific measurement of air quality improvements and how would any indicator lag be taken account of? How much would that annual assessment cost and who pays for it?
For a flood risk reduction scheme it becomes almost impossible to quantify the outcome in any one year, more so as the distance between the land claiming and the area benefiting increases. The costs of proving that the scheme outcomes had been met in order to trigger payment could be prohibitive (A simple example I was involved with was the feasibility assessment of a traditional flood reduction scheme for Clavering and Manuden in Essex in the 1990's where it cost over £40k in study to "prove" that an £80k scheme was not sufficiently cost beneficial to go ahead. The assumptions necessary for the study were open to challenge and the margins of error in the results were considerable. The affected properties STILL have not had a defence scheme).
The more thought I give it the more it sounds like a consultants work creation scheme.
A key area for making this work wiould be how the delivery of outcomes is quantified.
For a carbon sequestration scheme it should be quite straight forward - How much biomass has grown and so how much carbon has been absorbed.
For an air quality scheme it could be much more complex. Would it require specialist scientific measurement of air quality improvements and how would any indicator lag be taken account of? How much would that annual assessment cost and who pays for it?
For a flood risk reduction scheme it becomes almost impossible to quantify the outcome in any one year, more so as the distance between the land claiming and the area benefiting increases. The costs of proving that the scheme outcomes had been met in order to trigger payment could be prohibitive (A simple example I was involved with was the feasibility assessment of a traditional flood reduction scheme for Clavering and Manuden in Essex in the 1990's where it cost over £40k in study to "prove" that an £80k scheme was not sufficiently cost beneficial to go ahead. The assumptions necessary for the study were open to challenge and the margins of error in the results were considerable. The affected properties STILL have not had a defence scheme
).The more thought I give it the more it sounds like a consultants work creation scheme.
- Location
- Northumberland
And what happens if anyone has the misfortune to farm next to a Quarry/mine,or any other industry that gives off emissions.I've been thinking about this overnight as the weather kept me awake
A key area for making this work wiould be how the delivery of outcomes is quantified.
For a carbon sequestration scheme it should be quite straight forward - How much biomass has grown and so how much carbon has been absorbed.
For an air quality scheme it could be much more complex. Would it require specialist scientific measurement of air quality improvements and how would any indicator lag be taken account of? How much would that annual assessment cost and who pays for it?
For a flood risk reduction scheme it becomes almost impossible to quantify the outcome in any one year, more so as the distance between the land claiming and the area benefiting increases. The costs of proving that the scheme outcomes had been met in order to trigger payment could be prohibitive (A simple example I was involved with was the feasibility assessment of a traditional flood reduction scheme for Clavering and Manuden in Essex in the 1990's where it cost over £40k in study to "prove" that an £80k scheme was not sufficiently cost beneficial to go ahead. The assumptions necessary for the study were open to challenge and the margins of error in the results were considerable. The affected properties STILL have not had a defence scheme
The more thought I give it the more it sounds like a consultants work creation scheme.
Walterp
Member
- Location
- Pembrokeshire
Alternative view: you may be inspecting the 'wrong' end of the telescope?
Glastir failed when it was first introduced, due to low acceptance as a result of being over-complicated. It is now very successful, because it was re-designed as pressure mounted (ultimately, from the Commission) to make it work.
A poorly-designed UK-specific scheme might, similarly, result in poor uptake.
The crucial difference is that the UK might stop, and declare that 'farmers didn't take it up, so we've reallocated the money to public services'.
There will be no re-design.
Walterp
Member
- Location
- Pembrokeshire
The point is that the Commission perform many functions on behalf of all 28 members States, so that those 32,000 employees are extremely efficient.
If the UK takes back those functions, it is fairly obvious even to Brexit zealots that customs, regulations, immigration, etc would imply the UK employing more than that figure simply to carry out work that is now being done on our behalf.
Brexit - economics for juveniles, politics for toddlers, sentiments for old men.
deleted user 837354
Member
Listen, you do not need 32,000 employees to run a trade pact.
RobFZS
Member
Bizarre reply as per
What makes you think the commission is soo efficient? at the moment we're paying a 3rd party to do a job for us, with not our best interests in line, it's like hiring in a contractor to do your silage, he'll try and address your issues the best he can, but you wont get to pick and choose when he comes, so that good silage you could make in the sun, alot of the time ends up being made in less than the best conditions, i simply don't see how one entity working for 28 others, can deliver you the best outcome, doing the same job.
Their solution to the migrant crisis was the outsource it to Turkey with a bung, Their solution to car regs is outsourcing it to UNECE, their solution to a declining birthrate is by allowing in millions of unskilled migrants, see a trend here? your beloved EU outsources alot of it's policy making now,copy and pasting straight from a Monsanto paper details on Glysophate particularity amused me.
Just to upset your cognitive dissonance, pick up any manual you get with new machinery (assuming you have some) look at the back at where all the safety conformations are, Notice there might be a few old ones from the Ec, of which we were part of, all the newer regs are made via ISO, which is an independent internal regulator, this is proof of a changing world, the Eu is outsourcing it's policy making on regs, to focus on closer political union.
RobFZS
Member
Well we can just look to the NAFTA agreement for proof you don't need a supranational power to force an agreement as one.
RobFZS
Member
Also, bingo
pejay
Member
You
Farmers should calm down.the Anzac can supply you with all the meat and potatoes you need
RobFZS
Member
We're all worried about the climate now, carbon footprint from them tatties will upset the middle classes greatly
digger64
Member
M
But surely it will be a 2 way street loose some gain some regarding the economy