[hibeejim21]

https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocum...pdf#page=6


That's from 2016.

It still doesn't make for good reading.

Matter of opinion. It at least dispels the lie that 'auditors haven't signed off or published EU accounts'

Thankfully it's not just my opinion. It's the factual report from the ECA stating their findings, especially with regard to the re-imbursement of costs. They wouldn't have given a qualified opinion on these accounts if they were happy with their findings.

But they didn't give it an adverse opinion which is what some are saying they are trying to hide. This 'they haven't had the accounts signed off in 20 years' is a total lie.

The most recent report gives a qualified opinion that “A significant part of the 2016 expenditure audited was not affected by a material level of error”.

They stress around 3% of their budget was not used according to the rules,but that is "not a measure of fraud, inefficiency or waste"