[UKBusinessLive]

It doesn't even make the newspapers any more: that's the shocking thing. We are so blas? about Brussels fraud that we no longer notice it. Yesterday, for the 14 years in a row, the European Court of Auditors refused to approve the EU's accounts.

Its 324-page report was couched in the bland language favoured by accountants everywhere, but its import was unmistakable. Chunks of the EU's ?70 billion budget are being lost and stolen. The report identifies fraudulent claims, bogus invoices and other accounting failures. While the auditors are happy to vouch for the money raised by the EU, they cannot say where it goes.

Indeed, one of the main complaints of the former chief accountant, Marta Andreasen, was the absence of double-entry book-keeping. Many accounts, she found, were held on spreadsheets, allowing them to be retrospectively doctored. When she went public, she was suspended and then, in a final vindictive act by the outgoing Commission, fired.

What makes the EU behave like this? Its employees are not inherently wickeder than anyone else. All organisations have their share of shysters. The difference is that there is no link in Brussels between taxation, representation and expenditure. The EU expects bouquets when it spends, but not brickbats when it taxes, because its revenue is handed over by national treasuries.

As Milton Friedman once observed, there are only two kinds of money: your money and my money. The trouble is that, in Brussels, it's all your money. This creates an attitude to expenditure that is at best negligent, at worst corrupt.

The National Audit Office found that Britain's net cash contribution to Brussels jumped by 40 per cent to more than ?4billion between 2006 and 2007.

In the same year, the total value of reported irregularities rose by 20 per cent to €1,392 million (?1.3billion) across all European Union countries, a report published finds.

Philip Hammond, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, added: "It is outrageous that the EU's shambolic financial management will force struggling British taxpayers to surrender even more of their hard-earned money to Brussels - particularly when this is partly due to weak financial controls here in Britain.

"Yet again, people will be furious that Gordon Brown signed away a huge chunk of Britain's rebate in return for absolutely nothing."

The average Medium to large business, gains nothing at all by being in the EU, In my eyes it does nothing for trade, except cost the UK Taxpayers Billions each year.

The EU does a roaring trade with other countries not in the EU, Its not as if britain is not self sufficent?

So How did we join??

The first Prime Minister to try to lead Britain into the EEC was Harold Wilson who, from 1966, was convinced that Britain could not survive outside the EEC. His Government's application to join, in May 1967 was vetoed by General de Gaulle, the French president, whose life and career had been saved by the British during the Second World War but whose loyalties were first to himself, second to France and not at all to Britain. Actually, French President Charles de Gaulle rejected Britain's application to join the Common Market twice. In public he argued that Britain, a traditional island nation, was not suited to be part of a European superstate. That was just political flim-flam. In reality he rejected Britain (despite everything that Britain had done for him and France during the Second World War) because he wanted to delay Britain's entry until the Common Agricultural Policy (designed to give huge subsidies to French peasant farmers) had been properly set up. Once the CAP was in place the loathsome de Gaulle suddenly decided that Britain's island history no longer mattered, and he became enthusiastic about Britain joining the Common Market. Naturally, he really wanted Britain to join the Market in order to help pay for the costs of running the CAP and keeping French farmers satisfied. There are a lot of French farmers, and they have always been a powerful voting block. Right from the start of the EU Britain has been used by both America and France. And it is still happening.

Three years later, when the foul and repulsive Ted Heath got into Number 10 Downing Street he began negotiations again, and a treaty was agreed in January 1972. This was the infamous treaty in which the treasonous Heath lied to everyone and betrayed his country.

In the months prior to Heath's betrayal the British public had not been convinced that they wanted their country to enter the EEC. Many, perhaps, simply didn't trust the politicians' claims that membership would be merely a commercial convenience. One opinion poll in early 1971 showed that the British people were against entry by the astonishing ratio of three to one. This opposition came despite the expenditure by the European Commission Information Service of around ?10 million on trying to persuade opinion formers of the benefits of membership of the EEC.

Soon we're going to get the worlds biggist Lair as president, Tony Blair and that repulsive wife of his, god help us

source: http://www.vernoncoleman.com/howthebritishmedia.htm