Thats good news, though it would be even better news if the fund didn’t exist in the first place.

What is it with the BNP? They can never file any financial returns in time, do they do it on purpose?

Indeed. But of course, the EU itself has a similar little problem with accounting

I get the feeling you’re not a fan of the EU then?

It is not the worst thing in the world, but it is pretty corrupt, wasteful, undemocratic, and, beyond its first pillar competencies, unnecessary.

Lol @ the fascists.

(Re the EU, I actually agree with Nick).

This is why they are not a threat – they are simply too incompetent.

…And racist.

Never a good mix in order to woo voters.

Indeed. But of course, the EU itself has a similar little problem with accounting

Contrary to popular myth, the commission’s accounts are signed off. It is the controls surounding expnditure of the EU budget that the COurt of Auditors fails to sign off every year. And this is because national governamnts are not so tight with their paperwork as they should be. And Britain is a major culprit in this regard.

Of course the commission governs the process of handing out funding and should be more robust in demanding proper controls are adhered to.

But this is not the same thing as hysterically charging the EU with “fraud” as Eurosceptics in Britain are wont to do.

BenM, it is not quite as clear cut as that. The centralised nature of the CAP and the structural funds means that the money is more likely to get “lost” in the system. Of course, since the vast majority of funding eventually gets down to national governments, they play a role too.

There is also the high pay, perks and expenses of EU officials which is another feature of their lack of accountability. I don’t think of this as a uniquely EU thing, but these things tend to get worse the larger the region you are managing. And it is just rather galling that most of the stuff the EU does now does not have have to happen at the EU level at all.

Nick,

Of course managing 100bn Euros of expenditure ain’t easy. And the commission was slow at getting to grips with even the basics – like double-entry bookkeeping (however if national governments were that concerned they’d have brought the broom in long ago).

But eventually national governments manage most of that structural and CAP funding and per the Court of Auditors report it is they who share the blame for the lack of clean signoff these last few years.

As the Court of Auditors press release states:

“The European Court of Auditors is issuing a clean (unqualified) opinion on the reliability of the 2008 EU accounts.The Court concludes that the 2008 annual accounts of the European Communities present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the European Communities and the results of their operations and cash flows.”

That’s the commission bit.

“In terms of the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying the accounts, the overall results for 2008 reflect the improvements in the management of the budget in recent years.

The improvement in 2008 is a consequence primarily of better results in the largest policy group “Agriculture and natural resources”, accounting for almost half of the EU budget. For this policy group the Court, for the first time, does not give an adverse opinion but a qualified one. Effectively the error rate for this policy group as a whole is below materiality.”

That’s the expenditure bit.

http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/3260294.PDF

The auditors do not categorically state there is fraud, that remains a eurosceptic fabrication. It just states that the complexity of the underlying systems makes it hard for them to give an unqualified opinion on the transactions.

Knowing the BNP, they more than likely filled in the forms and then lost them. Expect them to emerge on Wikileaks in a few days.