Channel 4 debate

I do not pass judgement on politicians using recreational or illegal drugs before they were in public office. I am however angered by Gove, as minister for Education,passing legislation that ruined teacher's careers if they indulged in the same recreational and illegal drugs. So much for making a mistake and deserving a second chance. I disliked him before this, but now he is a hypocrite and cannot seriously expect to be responsible for making laws concerning drugs, he will, rightly, have no public or police respect.

Maxdecatt - Audit reports do not actually contain the word "clean" and it is not in the audit report of the EU accounts. The auditors used the phrase as a means of explaining to the public in general that the accounts comply with normal accounting standards.

I have just read their opinion on the 2017 accounts. They state "in our opinion the consolidated accounts of the EU for the year ended 31 December 2017 present fairly, in all material aspects...........in accordance with financial Regulation and with accounting rules based on internationally accepted standards for the public sector"

They then give the basis for their opinion on the legality and regularity of revenue underlying the accounts which in their opinion is legal and regular in all material respects.

The next opinion is on payments which except for "the matter described in the Basis for qualified opinion" are "legal and regular in all material respects"

Finally they give the basis for their opinion, which I won't bore you with, save to say that they have qualified the accounts because of reimbursements materially affected by error. Their overall materiality level is 2% - the estimated error level for reimbursement is 3.7%

It seems to me that the EU's audit report is no different to that of many other large companies. It goes into more detail (348 pages) but it is what they now call the statement of assurance and supporting information (ie the opinion) that is important.

Sadly the anti EU British papers have seen fit to provide erroneous information each year, in order to stoke the anti EU fire.

Finally, I note that you have refrained from commenting upon my statement about NF's expenses.

I’ve already said I don’t think Johnson would make a good PM ( for many reasons) but the general public have never really known much about earlier politicians and their private lives.Now we know much more.Do members ( of any political party) ignore or set aside the character flaws/faults/peccadilloes of a politician if they think he would make a good leader, or do they choose one that they think is likeable/good role model etc.It’s an interesting thought.Do you think that mainly men tend to the first outlook and women to the second ?

No WWM2 I haven’t read all the biographies ( and even then a lot would be left out as too much for the public!)
David Lloyd George was thought to be a serial womaniser and no doubt many others were too, and still are.Other flaws, lying,cheating, bullying and many more will be found if you look closely, it’s human nature and just because a person is in a position of power doesn’t make them immune, in fact it very likely exacerbates flaws of character.

I have just read the thread from 2014 river and it seems many gnetters were impressed with Rory Stewart then as now. Personally I had never heard of him til recent events.

None of them will make a good prime minister

There was a GN thread about RS five years ago - seems I was as sceptical then as I am now!

Rory Stewart

Just because he's not Boris Johnson doesn't make him a good prime minister.

In other words lemon you don’t know. Guesswork?

Should read Just saying

'^just saying^' What a juvenile remark with which to end a post.

Sadly, lemongrove, not everything is brought into the open. Just ordinary gossip about affairs and recently the historical drug use many of the current crop of politicians of a certain age are likely to have shared with voters of their generation. Hardly anyone gets agitated about that, tho I confess to disliking serial philanderers and liars. Just saying

You would have to go back a long way WWM2 and read biographies of all PM’s,in all Parties, plus cabinet members.
Even then, you wouldn’t get all the flaws and private misdemeanors.Today, everything is brought out in the open for us to see.

Ooh do name lemon

If the general public had known about the private lives of all politicians years ago, some, who were really very good at their jobs and brought in landmark policies for the greater good of the UK , would never have been chosen.Just something to think about.
You could say ( with some accuracy) that we know far too much now without seeing the whole picture, just snippets of information about individuals that don’t add up to the whole.
Am talking of all MP’s btw.

Where there’s money there’s a temptation for wrong doing. The EU has an awful lot of money ....

Dinahmo. Read what they said and read it carefully. " We are therefore able to give a clean opinion of the accounts" They do not say, "We give an opinion that the accounts are clean". What they were saying was that the audit wax conducted in a clean manner....in other words their opinion is clean and untarnished....not influenced by bullying of EU opfficials to whitewash a can of worms. That is not an endorsement...in fact it is a subtle condemnation of the acconts. "We found the books to have been cooked but are restrained from saying so is so many words". Auditors always cover their backs...they earn vast sums for their work and the last thing they would say is "This business is crooked". So they couch their report in language which prevents them (the auditors) from being accused of covering up fraud. "What we were allowed to see is more or less acceptable, but beyond that we cannot say" Their regulating body is well aware of the need to do so....auditors being struck of the board is the lastr thing they want.

I don't care how many supposed affairs or marriages Boris has had all I want him to do is carry out the referendum vote and take us out of the EU on the 31st October 2019 and get rid of the Remainers in the cabinet.

Yes I called them idiots Lemon and perhaps ‘incompetents’ would have been more accurate. Gove managed to alienate the teachers, Hunt the junior doctors. Neither showed any of the ‘negotiating skills’ they boasted about on C4. Javid has failed to make any significant improvements at the Home Office and Raab didn’t last two minutes as Brexit Secretary.

There was only Stewart who actually attempted to debate, which is what the programme was supposed to be.

Just recalled Alan Clatk, one wife, many mistresses, many of the public loved him .?

Exactly, not the same scenario at all. Actually " philandering" makes him sound like some sort of 19th century dandy.

Just like Boris makes him sound like some somebody we know and love.

The truth, from his ex wife, his children, his father, those who have worked with him is somewhat different.

The marriage broke down, it happens as we're all old enough and wise enough to know.
I don't see much comparison between that and Doris with his serial philandering and unknown number of children. He betrayed his wife over and over. One of his daughters recently described him as a selfish **.

I know nothing about the backstory but If someone is happily married why would they agree to go on a date with another man?

Rory Stewart
Upstanding
Educated
Dated and subsequently married a woman who was still happily married to her first husband at the time of their meeting.

Rory/Boris
Pot/kettle?

Tillybelle, what a good, & unfortunately truthful, summary of Boris! I hope it's widely read by as many politicians as possible.

maxdecatt - the arrangements for the withdrawal of a state from the European Union are set out in Article 218(3) in the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. They have said on many occasions that they will not renegotiate with the UK. Any politician who states that they can do so is either pig headed, arrogant or stupid (or all three)

As regards the "signing off" of the EU's annual accounts, there appears to be a slight misunderstanding here. Included in their opinion of the 2016 accounts the state " we were therefore able to give a clean opinion of the accounts as we have done since 2007"

Auditors' opinions are given on the accuracy and reliability of the accounts, that they present a true and fair view and follow the rules of financial reporting. If they qualify a set of accounts they give their reasons for the qualification.

The auditors have found significant errors in how the money was paid out. This does not mean that all the people involved were fraudulent. The UK's Public Accounts Committee concluded that for years the complexity of the EU's spending programme, which creates misunderstanding, contributes towards these errors. It doesn't mean that the money was wasted but that it wasn't paid out according to the rules. eg - awarding and EU funded contract directly without holding a proper bidding process .However, the most common type of error is when people claim for costs which they aren't eligible for. Beloved (by some) NF has had his salary halved on order to recoup misspent money.