Bear your logic on googling is mis guided. I did all my research before the referendum. How could I possibly retain the "exact" links I used then or the exact % and figures on instant recall for posters on here who cant be bothered to look themselves?
I know the EU is corrupt because at the time I looked into this aspect in depth, so I "know" it. The articles I find now will probably be different to what I looked at, at the time.
In the past on brexit threads I and others used to post long complicated tracts with links and rather like the German recession threads we were called Bots. Shills and all the rest.
Re discussion, actually some threads are clearly for exchanging of ideas and others are more chat threads where people don't aggressively ask for questions. Eg the west-minders threads, which this thread was supposed to be like in tone, for leavers to chat on.
Anyway...after quick google on the "club keeping its house clean" and tidy for members.
www.rand.org/news/press/2016/03/22.html
The Cost of Corruption in Europe — Up to €990 Billion (£781.64 Billion) Lost Annually
RAND Europe's study shows the true extent of the cost of corruption in the EU, with new figures far higher than the previous estimate of €120 billion (£94.74 billion).
Study estimates that an initial €71.12 billion (£56.16 billion) could be saved through the EU adopting three policy measures regarding corruption.
Corruption risks during public procurement could cost Europe around €5 billion (£3.95 billion) a year.
A new study has highlighted the true extent of the cost of corruption in Europe, with new estimates showing that up to €990 billion (£781.64 billion) in GDP terms is lost annually.
The Cost of Non-Europe in the Area of Corruption Study by RAND Europe, commissioned by the European Parliament, investigated the many forms of corruption, which includes paying bribes or exercising power to give privileged access to public services, goods or contracts.
The new figures from the study are far higher than the initial estimate provided by the European Commission of €120 billion (£94.74 billion), after RAND Europe used an innovative methodology to measure the cost of corruption to the EU as a whole. This takes into account the indirect effects of corruption, such as disincentives of companies to invest, and direct effects, such as money lost on tax revenues and public procurement.
www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=8ab9996b-5454-4a7d-a38a-6e376aa310f3
Drago Kos, Chair of the OECD Working Group on Bribery says recent developments highlight the EU’s ongoing disinterest in this area. ‘It is obvious that the fight against corruption has never been a priority for the EU,’ he told Global Insight
Drago Kos, Chair of the OECD Working Group on Bribery says recent developments highlight the EU’s ongoing disinterest in this area. ‘It is obvious that the fight against corruption has never been a priority for the EU,’ he told Global Insight.
strengthen the EU in this regard, for example by linking EU funds to respect for basic democratic values and rule of law,’ she says. Although Koneska warns that ‘finding unanimity to implement such a change is likely to be very difficult.’
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/10/brexit-leaving-eu-farming-agriculture
The one good thing about Brexit? Leaving the EU’s disgraceful farming system
I’m a remainer, but there’s one result of Brexit I can’t wait to see: leaving the EU’s common agricultural policy. This is the farm subsidy system that spends €50bn (£44bn) a year on achieving none of its objectives. It is among the most powerful drivers of environmental destruction in the northern hemisphere. Because payments are made only for land that’s in “agricultural condition”, the system creates a perverse incentive to clear wildlife habitats, even in places unsuitable for farming, to produce the empty ground that qualifies for public money. These payments have led to the destruction of hundreds of thousands of hectares of magnificent wild places across Europe.
It is also arguably the most regressive transfer of public money in the modern world. Farmers are paid by the hectare for owning or using land; so the more you have, the more you get. While in the UK benefits for poor people are capped at £20,000 (outside London), these benefits for the rich are uncapped. Some landowners receive £1m or more. You don’t even have to live in the EU to take this money: you just have to own land here. Among the benefit tourists sucking up public funds in the age of austerity are Russian oligarchs, Saudi princes and Texas oil barons.
www.agriland.ie/farming-news/leading-vet-claims-corruption-endemic-within-eu-food-industry/
Leading vet claims corruption is endemic within EU food industry
www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/opinion/as-cruel-industrial-pig-farming-persists-in-the-eu-one-million-citizens-demand-change/
Under the European Commission’s indulgent eye, the race to the bottom in the EU’s pig industry pushes profits to the edge at the cost of pig welfare, against law and public opinion. But a movement of citizens and NGOs is gaining momentum to demand change in the industry’s methods.
We are faced with the unprecedented situation whereby, with the exceptions of Finland and Sweden, EU member states are disregarding minimum legal standards for the protection of pigs.
carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/77468
The EU is too lax in both. It has allowed the misuse of funds from Brussels, pretending to believe in the power of national authorities. Rhetorically it supports the anticorruption fight and helps to create pressure on politicians and national authorities, which is then misused
And I would also put partial blame on the EU. It has allowed cases like Danske Bank, which is simply channeling money into the EU for corrupt purposes. Small countries like Estonia or Latvia cannot cope with such regulatory challenge and need EU help.
To put it simply, the EU has underestimated the power of corruption as a political factor
long and boring I know but the reoccurring words, lax, soft, passive....under estimated....are used across hundreds of articles on the EU.
"The problem is that the EU seems to be moderately committed to fighting corruption—there are no real institutional mechanisms in place for monitoring corruption within the EU and standing up against it"
By failing to do so, corruption—which, according to some estimates, can cost taxpayers €990 billion a year—is raising public dissatisfaction with the EU, undermining solidarity among member states, and threatening the existence of the union itself
Its a huge blithering uncontrollable mess. I don't want to be any part of it. And finally...
a poster on one of the threads said she/he would rather have the fine upstanding EU lording over her than current MPS.
www.politico.eu/article/belgium-commission-pick-under-investigation-didier-reynders/
Belgian police are investigating allegations of corruption and money-laundering against Didier Reynders, the country's foreign minister and the nominee to be the EU's next justice commissioner.
The preliminary probe, conducted by police and overseen by a prosecutor, adds to the investigations hanging over several nominees for the next European Commission, which was unveiled by President-elect Ursula von der Leyen on Tuesday.
unherd.com/2019/09/inside-the-rotten-heart-of-the-eu/
While the UK Parliament was being prorogued, the European Union this week officially announced a troupe of new executive appointees to oversee us all. Appointed via the offices of the incoming European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, these eight vice-presidents are responsible for implementing the president-elect’s policy priorities, and have a huge impact on the lives of millions. And none of them can do a thing about it.
Apparently, I – as an MEP – get a say on whether to endorse them, but it’s not exactly a free and fair election. There is no actual choice, for a start, just a chance to reject or query a pre-ordained list.
The newly-appointed Justice Commissioner (whose role involves ensuring compliance with the rule of law) insisted it was a harmless tradition. Fair enough, but after listening to endless speeches at the European Parliament achingly flaunting their anti-racists credentials, and calling for legal sanctions against hate speech, this hypocrisy is hard to take.
These new members of Ms Von der Leyen’s cabinet have been given new titles, supposedly to focus on their goals, but with a tinge of Orwellian doublespeak. So, we have a Commissioner for “A Stronger Europe in the World” and a Commissioner for “An Economy that Works for People”. One particularly creepy rebrand involves Greece‘s Margaritis Schinas – a former MEP, LSE alumnus and spokesman for previous President Jean-Claude Juncker – who has been given the migration portfolio and now revels in the title of Vice President for “Protecting our European Way of life”.
the more racist dynamic resides in Fortress Europe; it is a circling-the-wagons mentality that savagely polices its own borders to protect it from non-European immigrants, who are posited as a threat to “our European Way of Life”.
“In fair free elections, the power of the people determines the people in power”. Fine words, but simply not true. Juncker’s successor did not get her elevated position as a result of people power, but was appointed to the top job after secret negotiations in July that followed a row when the candidates put forward by the European Parliament were turned down by EU heads of government.