How can we tell whether the European Union is corrupt?

Great Debates
21

::sigh:: I miss the old days, december. Back then, I would actually have to do research to refute the tripe you posted.
Nowadays, there’s just no challenge. The thrill is gone.

But duty beckons. Let’s get this over with quickly - I’m hungry. Your “analysis” is as follows:

1. Arafat has $1.3 billion.
Response: Unproven. You have one unsubstantiated source, and that source has a self-interest in trying to cast Arafat as corrupt.

But let’s assume arguendo that Arafat has $1.3 billion. On to “analysis” point 2:
2. Arafat obtained that money illicitly
Response: Utterly unsubstantiated. Interestingly, in the article you linked, even Gen. Ze’evi does not make that assertion.

But let’s keep playing the game. We will assume arguendo that Arafat has $1.3 billion and he obtained illicitly.

3. The illicit behavior through which Arafat obtained his $1.3 billion was embezzlement of donations.
Response: Unsubstantiated. Based on the “evidence,” Arafat could be a cocaine kingpin.

But we continue, arguendo

**4. The “only possible source” of the donations Arafat could have embezzled is the EU’s aid to the PA.
Response Ludicrous. Arafat has been head of al-Fatah since 1964 and the PLO since 1969 (IIRC). In those 38 years, al-Fatah and the PLO has received billions in donations from innumerable sources, primarily (i) the Gulf states, (ii) the Soviet Bloc, and (iii) the Palestinian Diaspora.
Since the founding of the PA, the US has donated $238 million, and the UN has also given aid.
Arafat could have had his entire wealth (prior to investment income and interest) before the EU donated a penny to the PA.

But, arguendo, arguendo we move on.

**5. To embezzle portions of the EU’s donations, Arafat must be paying off EU officers. **
Response: Assumes facts not in evidence. To wit - it assumes that (i) the EU knows that Arafat is embezzling EU donations and (ii) the EU would cut off donations if they knew, unless Arafat paid off EU officers.

In sum, if Arafat has $1.3 billion, and if Arafat gained that $1.3 billion through embezzlement of donations, the money could have been stolen from any of at least six different sources, or combinations thereof.

Yet you only accuse the EU of having their money embezzled, and to top it off, you accuse them of complicity in the theft of their own funds. Why is that, I wonder?

Sua

22

Bigotry.

23

<<Yet you only accuse the EU of having their money embezzled, and to top it off, you accuse them of complicity in the theft of their own funds. Why is that, I wonder? >>

Actually the OP said, “a thought comes to mind that some of that money **may **be finding its way to the EU decision-makers.” As I said, the thought of corruption comes from living in New Jersey, a state where last year’s economic downturn was so severe that organized crime had to lay off three judges.

And, that discussion was a lead-in to ask about controls against corruption within the EU.

Sparc mentioned Enron, which was an instance of corporate corruption. If asked what controls exist to fight corporate corruption, I would mention internal auditors, the Board of Directors, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors, the independent auditors, the SEC, and (in some businesses) state or federal regulators. (Of course, these controls sometimes fail, as they did in the case of Enron.) I was looking for a comparable list for EU managment.

24

and, of course, he blissfully ignores all the other posts and aspects - which demonstrated (If I followed it) that damn near all of his premisi (plural of premise ya know), were at best undeterminable, at worst flat out false, and even if all were true, his conclusion was unsupported.

Next, ladies and gentlemen, watch with awe and wonderment as we demonstrate conclusively that might = right, two wrongs do equal one right, and the earth is flat.

25

Read those two sentence. Now find the error.

december,

THE EU IS NOT A CORPORATION

THE EU IS A PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRATIC FEDERATION (in the making)

It has the same checks and balances against corruption as most parliamentary democracies. See my previous post for the most basic overview. Above and beyond that we have auditors and a European court, and so on and etc.

THE SAME AS MOST PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY SUCH AS FOR INSTANCE THE US

Stop the EU bashing! Just stop! Give up! Stop! Desist! Don’t do it anymore! STOP! Please stop…

If you must do it; do it with some brains.

Sparc

26

Actually the OP said

Every statement in your OP has been refuted. Your questions are meaningless in light of this. There is no debate.

To echo Sparc

27

December, one thing I have to say for You: If You weren’t here all debates would miss some colour.

You seem to be as I am, in business.
You know as I know, that there is a lot of corruption in business (feedbacks). Nobody can totally control feedbacks.

I will explain: Let us assume, that I am selling 10.000 cbm of logs to a company from the company I work for.
The buying company says to me, that if I “compress” the price with two dollars, they give me 1 dollar per cbm.
This is called “feedback”.

I worked 2,5 year for EU in a small project.
I do not like EU. It is a body where many people tries to grab as much as they can.
But not directly as bribes, as far as I know.
Example:
In a conference in Rome, the Italian guys asked the whole Finnish delegation: “Do You want to know a very good restaurant. We are going there anyhow?”
Of course the delegation went. The Italians said that everybody is naturally paying for themselves. Of course.

So, then was the time to pay. The Italian guys said to the waiter: “Please give the sums for everyone (separately).
Then everyone collected the money and the Italian guys said: You do not need a receipt, do You?” and asked the waiter to put everything on one receipt. And took the receipt.

Naturally the Finns understood that the Italian guys would make a report that they have had dinner with the Finnish delegation…
And then made a report what conclusions they came to etc. etc.
(Even if, to the Finnish guys ashtonishment, the Italians did not adress them with a word though the whole dinner).

And then the EU pays the reportmaker for the whole dinner.
So, I have seen it on this level.

The other level:
Finland makes a Eu project in Russia. The budget can be, let’s say, 100.000 USD.

  • The whole adminis-tration for this project is situated in Finland.
  • The Finnish guys goes to Russia, more or less weekly. He gets about 3.000 USD per month in salary. And for every day he spends there, his costs are covered by EU. And he gets a daily taxfree payment “for being abroad”.

And what did the Russians get?
The Russian directors got good dinners. “Pavel and Igor” got nothing.

What did EU get?
They got A4-reports about "the co-ordinating of … and mutual … and how the work together should be laid out…
And an application for a “following project”, with a budget, let’s say 150.000 USD and so on…

It is a very long story, but I critizised the system. I got kicked.

Personally I hope Finland gets out of EU as soon as possibly.
And that the “EU-A4-project coordinators” are sent to Siberia, “for further investigasions” for let’s say 5 years.

I think this kind of shit is everywhere, but Siberia is big, so begin send Your corrupted A4-guys to Siberia.

And in a few yaers we get very well educated people, on the subject; “How to cooperate with the Russians”.

Henry

28

In response the this alone, simple, ask Marta Andreasen, the chief accountant to the commission :slight_smile:

Maybe she was just mental or something

29

It is hard to believe this thread. Doesn’t everyone know that politicians lie? All you can do is look at their actions to get some idea of what is important to them.

Based on what the protagonists are doing (and have done) my take is this:

Arrafat has not got $1.3b. This is a huge figure - about 1/20 of Bill Gates fortune. If Arrafat had this sort of money he would not be sitting in Palestine - he would be sitting in the South of France or Calafornia. He would probably be playing golf with Bush - $1.3b buys you a lot of friends on Capitol Hill.

The European Commission have not given Arrafat $1.3b for illegal purposes. If they are honourable they would not, and if they are corrupt - why would they give $1.3b away? They would be the ones sitting on deck-chairs by the swimming pool.

30

Interestingly, a Cuban exile I met in the US told me the same story about Castro.

31

A short message from our sponsors:

Timmy’s Tinfoil Hats - The Ultimate In Mental Insulation

**Timmy’s - The premiere source for conspiracist and crackpot supplies. **
Appointed special supplier to the UFO Society of America
“Fighting the Federal Cabal is hard work; without Timmy’s it would
be impossible,” says Anonymous of the Montana Freemen

32

Thank you, Andy.

If this happened to an American corporation, the SEC would investigate and also a class-action lawsuit would be immdeicately filed. The fraud (if any) would likely be unearthed.

If this happened to a governmental entity, there’s a fair chance that it would be investigated by another branch of gorernment or that the opposing political party would make a fuss. However, in many cases, both parties conspired to keep the lid on a scandal, as in the huge Savings and Loan scandal of the 1980’s.

Suppose the top EU people simply stonewall, as in the above example. Deny that there’s a problem. Fire the whistle-blower and attack her ferociously. (That helps deter other whistle-blowers.)

Question: What checks an balances exist in the EU to deal with this problem? What group has the power and the interest to fight the EU leaders and to force the facts out? What sort of additional controls are needed?

BTW, some posters didn’t want to believe the report about Arafat’s wealth. From today’s New York Post,

33

Enough with the colours already! You’ll give me a migraine.

So the NYP quotes the same Israeli intelligence/propaganda report that you did. But now it’s $10 billion! Gates had better watch out. Or is it $6 billion? Or $1.3 billion?

(You’d think with all that wonga sloshing around, that “the man behind the suicide bombings” would be able to fund them a bit better…)

Note that it says “A 1994 British intelligence report allegedly put the figure at more than $10 billion” rather than “A 1994 British intelligence report alleged the figure was more than $10 billion”. This suggest the reporter hasn’t actually seen the report.

Note also the phrases “a knowledgeable Israeli source”, “a high-ranking Israeli official”, “is believed” (five times!).

I’ve worked as a journalist, and am well aware of the manner in which one can create a story out of no proper evidence.

I’m not familiar with the quoted publication, but are the epithets “sensationalist”, “poor research” and “tabloid” ever attached to it?

On your comments re. the EU - yes, I think I would agree that, on the face of it, there is less transparency than the US government.

34

Well, the NY Post report doesn’t really add a lot to the earlier report. It’s clearly based on the same sources. All we have is the assessment of an Israeli military officer based on documents which the Israelis say they seized from PA headquarters. They don’t appear to have published the documents. Forgive us if we don’t take this as the definitive last word on the subject.

The “British Intelligence Report” which “allegedly” put Arafat’s wealth at in excess of $10bn in 1994 doesn’t really add much. If it is correct, Arafat had built up a huge fortune by 1994, and it seems unlikely that all, or even most, of this could have come from donations to the PA starting in 1993.

For what it’s worth, I’m quite willing to believe that Arafat is hopelessly corrupt. What puzzles me is december’s attempt to use this to argue that the EU must be corrupt. On the one hand, the NY Post article which he cites mentions not only the EU but also the US and Japan (which december quotes) as sources of Arafat’s wealth as well as Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the oil sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf (which he doesn’t). The article also makes it clear that much of Arafat’s personal wealth did not come from the coffers of the PA (and therefore did not come indirectly from EU donations) but from other sources (direct payments to Arafat, payments to the PLO, the establishment of trading monopolies, etc). Any link between Arafat’s corruption and EU corruption is extremely tenuous. December hasn’t bothered to try to fill in the essential but missing links so clearly set out in SuaSponte’s cogent post.

On the other hand, if all that is in issue here is EU corruption, five minute’s research would yield abundant evidence of concern about this, evidence to suggest that it happens, etc. If december was remotely interested in this subject, he would know of this. It is a matter of very public discourse and considerable controversy. It’s just that none of the evidence or allegations that I have seen or heard of suggests that payments to the PA were influenced by corruption, so maybe december isn’t interested it it.

35

Absolute hogwash and utter fucking crock from beginning to end. Conjecture, facile conclusions, hasty judgment and false analogies as is to be expected from the posting member.

First of all Marta Andreasen’s criticism does not indicate that there is in fact reason to believe there have been irregularities, but that accounting practices are not transparent enough – that’s no smoking gun of disappearing funds, only an indication that if that would be the case it would be hard to trace the transactions. Second of all the irregularities she uncovers has naught to do with what Arafat might have done with money forwarded to the PA.

Second of all the analogy to the US is dimwitted beyond belief. Corporations in the EU are subject to the same scrutiny as in the US, the insider laws are not as harsh but otherwise it is pretty much the same. Vivendi Universal and Deutsche Telekom provide fantastic examples of the same. As re government bodies, the member’s over belief in the ‘honesty’ of American politicians is pitiful. Since we have used the Enron example so far let’s continue; how many members of congress had to abstain from participating in the investigation of the Enron debacle due to having received campaign funds? IIRC it was over sixty. Has the White House supplied the papers and notes pertaining to Dick Cheney’s meetings and dealings with Enron in regards energy regulation? No they haven’t. We could go on, but I think that suffices.

As for the last bit about us, the poor misguided fools of Europe and our desperate inability to wipe our own ass… yeah, that right. Jesus Christ. The fact that the Andreasen story is getting as much attention as it is speaks against that we let our government ‘just stonewall’ matters like these. In fact Marta wasn’t fired, she was reassigned not that I agree with that practice, the commission gave a semi-valid reason for this though. Their logic was that they couldn’t have a senior servant that chooses to go public with criticism of the democratic process rather than play it through the democratic channel. Meanwhile the Parliament and the Council acknowledge the problem and have initiated a review of accounting principles, and announced that there will be changes – they did this before Marta ‘blew the whistle’. Although I commend that sort of behavior myself, sometimes you have to be able to see when people are serving the greater good or just engaging in ‘political grandstanding’. It is noteworthy that the whole affair comes out of arguments about how the EU agricultural and fishery subsidies are distributed and that Marta’s home state, Spain is one of the parties that is bringing criticism on this level, since they feel they’ve been dealt a low blow by France in this matter.

There is no doubt that the EU needs to better itself in many respects, like any government and in some ways more. I would however recommend the readership to not take Mr. december’s analysis for anything other than it is… opinionated grandstanding.

And yes… thank you Andy!

Sparc

36

Absolute hogwash and utter fucking crock from beginning to end. Conjecture, facile conclusions, hasty judgment and false analogies as is to be expected from the posting member.

First of all Marta Andreasen’s criticism does not indicate that there is in fact reason to believe there have been irregularities, but that accounting practices are not transparent enough – that’s no smoking gun of disappearing funds, only an indication that if that would be the case it would be hard to trace the transactions. Second of all the irregularities she uncovers has naught to do with what Arafat might have done with money forwarded to the PA.

Second of all the analogy to the US is dimwitted beyond belief. Corporations in the EU are subject to the same scrutiny as in the US, the insider laws are not as harsh but otherwise it is pretty much the same. Vivendi Universal and Deutsche Telekom provide fantastic examples of the same. As re government bodies, the member’s over belief in the ‘honesty’ of American politicians is pitiful. Since we have used the Enron example so far let’s continue; how many members of congress had to abstain from participating in the investigation of the Enron debacle due to having received campaign funds? IIRC it was over sixty. Has the White House supplied the papers and notes pertaining to Dick Cheney’s meetings and dealings with Enron in regards energy regulation? No they haven’t. We could go on, but I think that suffices.

As for the last bit about us, the poor misguided fools of Europe and our desperate inability to wipe our own ass… yeah, that right. Jesus Christ. The fact that the Andreasen story is getting as much attention as it is speaks against that we let our government ‘just stonewall’ matters like these. In fact Marta wasn’t fired, she was reassigned not that I agree with that practice, the commission gave a semi-valid reason for this though. Their logic was that they couldn’t have a senior servant that chooses to go public with criticism of the democratic process rather than play it through the democratic channel. Meanwhile the Parliament and the Council acknowledge the problem and have initiated a review of accounting principles, and announced that there will be changes – they did this before Marta ‘blew the whistle’. Although I commend that sort of behavior myself, sometimes you have to be able to see when people are serving the greater good or just engaging in ‘political grandstanding’. It is noteworthy that the whole affair comes out of arguments about how the EU agricultural and fishery subsidies are distributed and that Marta’s home state, Spain is one of the parties that is bringing criticism on this level, since they feel they’ve been dealt a low blow by France in this matter.

There is no doubt that the EU needs to better itself in many respects, like any government and in some ways more. I would however recommend the readership to not take Mr. december’s analysis for anything other than it is… opinionated grandstanding.

And yes… thank you Andy!

Sparc

37

OK, so Marta was reassigned with only a “semi-valid” reason, meaning that the reason was also semi-invalid.

Sparc, to his credit, disagrees with the practice. I assume Sparc also disapproves of the attacks against Marta. The question is: What can Sparc do about his disagreement?

More realistically: *Is there some organization that shares Sparc’s concerns and which has the power to investigate? *Or, is the EU leadership essentially self-policing?

I’ve had a lot dealings with Lloyd’s of London. For hundreds of years, they were exempt from normal UK insurance regulation, for historical reasons and because they had such a good reputation. Their leaders were considered to be top-drawer. Well, about 15 -20 years ago, the sh*t hit the fan. It turned out that some Lloyd’s biggies were scum. Others were letting scummy practices continue. The loss to investors was just staggering – many billions of Pounds Sterling. A number of investors committed suicide – over 30 IIRC.

jjimm posted earllier, “BTW, Chris Patten is a very, very scrupulous man, an even-handed analyst”

I have no reason to disagree. However, Patten’s successor might not be as reliabile. what controls does the EU offer, beyond confidence in the individual? Are there adequate checks and balances?

38

I fail to see how an extremely archaic London institution such as Lloyds has any bearing whatsoever on the relatively young EU constitution, which has its own checks and balances, as well as an independent judiciary.

Re. Patten - you trust him now I told you he’s a conservative, eh? :wink: Seriously though, he’s an adviser. Following his analysis, they can vote, or they can appoint another adviser if they don’t trust his analysis, or they can vote against. What’s your beef here? It’s how all governments work.

39

Not only does december do no research into questions which supposedly interest him, but he doesn’t read (or reads but doesn’t understand, or reads and instantly forgets) the posts in the threads which he himself has started on these questions.

As jjimm has already pointed out in this thread, the EU Commission (which implements all the EU’s spending) was sacked by the EU parliament in 1999 precisely because of concerns about corruption. We can deduce from this that the EU Commission (which implements all the EU’s spending) is not self-policing, but is answerable to the Parliament.

And, yes, December, before you ask, the Parliament is elected by the people. That was in jjimm’s post too, but I dare say you may have missed it.

The Parliament also approves (or, if it wishes, doesn’t approve) the EU budget prepared by the Commission and the Council, another fact which december might have deduced from jjimm’s post without too much effort.

In short, the EU Commission is controlled by the Parliament in two ways. The Parliament can (and does) fire the Commission if they’re not happy with it. And the Parliament can refuse to authorise expenditure if they’re not happy with it.

There’s also the Court of Auditors, which december would know about if he’d looked into the matter. It audits EU revenue and expenditure to make sure it is lawful and proper and ensures that financial management is sound. It reports any irregularities to the European Parliament, so Parliament is not exactly in the dark in supervising expenditure by the Commission.

40

The concept of american democracy is illusion, quite frankly, it’s a 2 party dictatorship.