• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Could Bulgaria be the first country to leave the EU?


eurosceptic

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
83
Well with severe financial penalties on the way for failing to sort out corruption might we see the departure of bulgaria? I have to ask why we allowed her in! Corruption should have been substantially eliminated first.
 

brio910

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
13
Greenland left the then EEC in 1985.
Lucky them.

They are doing very well, thanks very much.

Good luck to Bulgaria.

And what a cheek from the EU. It is so corrupt its accounts haven't been signed off for the last 13 years.

For Heaven's sake, the entire EU Commission had to resign at one stage.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. The EU, Bulgaria, they're both corrupt as hell.
 

geraghd

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
474
brio910 said:
Greenland left the then EEC in 1985.
Lucky them.

They are doing very well, thanks very much.

Good luck to Bulgaria.

And what a cheek from the EU. It is so corrupt its accounts haven't been signed off for the last 13 years.

For Heaven's sake, the entire EU Commission had to resign at one stage.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. The EU, Bulgaria, they're both corrupt as hell.
What corruption exactly are you referring to?
 

brio910

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
13
Vitiating democracy in the nation states of the EU - pressuring countries to deny their people's referenda

Lacking transparency in spending - persecuting and hounding those who blew whistle on lack of control of budget - failing to have accounts signed off -

should be a sure sign of corruption. Don't you agree?
 

geraghd

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
474
brio910 said:
Vitiating democracy in the nation states of the EU - pressuring countries to deny their people's referenda

Lacking transparency in spending - persecuting and hounding those who blew whistle on lack of control of budget - failing to have accounts signed off -

should be a sure sign of corruption. Don't you agree?
No, no I don't.
Especially when you describe it like that.
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,359
Cough...Greenland....
 

Vega1447

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
5,783
brio910 said:
Greenland left the then EEC in 1985.

Greenland is not a State but a "self-governing Danish province" according to the big W...
i.e. not sovereign..

and certainly not self-sustaining.


Lucky them.

They are doing very well, thanks very much.

Good luck to Bulgaria.

And what a cheek from the EU. It is so corrupt its accounts haven't been signed off for the last 13 years.

For Heaven's sake, the entire EU Commission had to resign at one stage.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. The EU, Bulgaria, they're both corrupt as hell.
 

brio910

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
13
brio910 said:
Greenland left the then EEC in 1985.
Lucky them.

They are doing very well, thanks very much.
Show me something incorrect here and I will correct it right away. Otherwise....

Perhaps a distraction from EU corruption?
 

Magror14

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
1,893
eurosceptic said:
Well with severe financial penalties on the way for failing to sort out corruption might we see the departure of bulgaria? I have to ask why we allowed her in! Corruption should have been substantially eliminated first.
We, Eurosceptic? By that do you mean we the EU, including you. Glad to have you aboard. Time to change your name and your avatar.

Guess we'll have to play along with Bulgaria or it will be ingested by mother Russia.
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,992
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
Brussels itself is extremely corrupt (13 yrs without budget signed off) and as such has little moral authority with which to judge Bulgaria, though I also believe Bulgaria should be held accountable for corruption in them,is use of EU funds. But on the question of withdrawal as opposed to this specific case, I think it may well take a country seceding from the EU to bring the Eurocrats and politicians to their senses in terms of not taking the European project beyond what the peoples of Europe are prepared to tolerate. If it happens it will be their own fault for not listening. A Bastille moment may yet arise. Attempting to foist Lisbon on 2 nations that rejected it may bring it closer. They should read their history-books.
 

geraghd

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
474
FutureTaoiseach said:
Brussels itself is extremely corrupt (13 yrs without budget signed off) and as such has little moral authority with which to judge Bulgaria, though I also believe Bulgaria should be held accountable for corruption in them,is use of EU funds. But on the question of withdrawal as opposed to this specific case, I think it may well take a country seceding from the EU to bring the Eurocrats and politicians to their senses in terms of not taking the European project beyond what the peoples of Europe are prepared to tolerate. If it happens it will be their own fault for not listening. A Bastille moment may yet arise. Attempting to foist Lisbon on 2 nations that rejected it may bring it closer. They should read their history-books.
Where is the corruption exactly?
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,992
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
geraghd said:
FutureTaoiseach said:
Brussels itself is extremely corrupt (13 yrs without budget signed off) and as such has little moral authority with which to judge Bulgaria, though I also believe Bulgaria should be held accountable for corruption in them,is use of EU funds. But on the question of withdrawal as opposed to this specific case, I think it may well take a country seceding from the EU to bring the Eurocrats and politicians to their senses in terms of not taking the European project beyond what the peoples of Europe are prepared to tolerate. If it happens it will be their own fault for not listening. A Bastille moment may yet arise. Attempting to foist Lisbon on 2 nations that rejected it may bring it closer. They should read their history-books.
Where is the corruption exactly?
Santer budget controversy:

The community's budget for each year needs to be discharged by the Parliament following its report by the European Court of Auditors. It had only done so previously in 1984.[4] Towards the end of 1998 the Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control initially refused to discharge the community's budget for 1996 over what it saw as the arrogance of the Commission in its refusal to answer questions relating to financial mismanagement.[5] Paul van Buitenen, a whistle-blower working in the Commission, had sent the Parliament a report alleging that widespread fraud and cover ups, stating: "I found strong indications that . . . auditors have been hindered in their investigations and that officials received instructions to obstruct the audit examinations . . . The commission is a closed culture and they want to keep it that way, and my objective is to open it up, to create more transparency and to put power where it belongs - and that's in the democratically-elected European Parliament." In response, the Commission suspended him on half pay for releasing details of an inquiry.[6]


PES leader Pauline Green tabled a vote of no confidence in the CommissionHowever it eventually supported the discharge 14 to 13 on 11 December, recommending that the plenary support the discharge. It was taken to plenary for debate four days later however the assigned rapporteur publicly went against the Committee's official position and urged the plenary to reject the discharge motion. President Santer announced that the Commission would treat the vote of discharge as one of confidence. In a vote on 1998-12-17, the Parliament denied the discharge.[7]

In response, on the basis it was tantamount to a vote of no confidence, the President of PES, Pauline Green, announced she would put forward a motion of censure. However PES would vote against its own motion, as there is no method for a motion of confidence. During this period, the Parliament took on an increase government-opposition dynamic, with PES as a party supporting the Commission and the EPP renouncing its support and acting as a de-facto opposition party to the executive.[7] This is in part because the allegations centred on Édith Cresson and Manuel Marín, both from the Socialist party (PES). It was seen by some that it was an attempt by the People's party (EPP) to discredit PES ahead of the 1999 elections. This led to hesitation from the PES leadership, who were the largest group in Parliament, to support the allegations.[5] Motions tabled by the two groups outlined the differing stances the EPP favouring individual responsibility (just those whom the main allegations are against) and PES favouring an emphasis on collective responsibility (so EPP members such as the President, as well as PES members, would be forced to resign). The PES resolution also proposed establishing a committee of independent experts to investigate the allegations.
2006 controversy:

2006 whistleblowing
On April 26, 2006, daily 20 Minutes revealed that "in May 2005, MEP Paul van Buitenen was shocked by Frits Bolkestein's presence to Menatep's international consultative council, a sulfurous Russian banking establishment, and by his work for Shell, British-Dutch petrol company. Two firms 'detaining secret accounts in Clearstream' ... van Buitenen, also Dutch, then asked for 'clarification' to the European Commission and the opening of a parliamentary investigation. The Commission's president, José Manuel Barroso, answered that these facts "don't bring up any new question" and that it is not known "if Menatep took contact with Bolkestein while he was in his functions". No investigation thereby took place." The free daily underlines that "in 2001, it was Bolkestein himself that announced the Commission's refusal to open up a parliamentary investigation on Clearstream", following Harlem Désir's requests and accusations that Menatep had an "undeclared account" at Clearstream. Bolkestein refused to answer any questions by the newspaper.[1]
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2008
Messages
26
FutureTaoiseach said:
geraghd said:
FutureTaoiseach said:
Brussels itself is extremely corrupt (13 yrs without budget signed off) and as such has little moral authority with which to judge Bulgaria, though I also believe Bulgaria should be held accountable for corruption in them,is use of EU funds. But on the question of withdrawal as opposed to this specific case, I think it may well take a country seceding from the EU to bring the Eurocrats and politicians to their senses in terms of not taking the European project beyond what the peoples of Europe are prepared to tolerate. If it happens it will be their own fault for not listening. A Bastille moment may yet arise. Attempting to foist Lisbon on 2 nations that rejected it may bring it closer. They should read their history-books.
Where is the corruption exactly?
Santer budget controversy:

The community's budget for each year needs to be discharged by the Parliament following its report by the European Court of Auditors. It had only done so previously in 1984.[4] Towards the end of 1998 the Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control initially refused to discharge the community's budget for 1996 over what it saw as the arrogance of the Commission in its refusal to answer questions relating to financial mismanagement.[5] Paul van Buitenen, a whistle-blower working in the Commission, had sent the Parliament a report alleging that widespread fraud and cover ups, stating: "I found strong indications that . . . auditors have been hindered in their investigations and that officials received instructions to obstruct the audit examinations . . . The commission is a closed culture and they want to keep it that way, and my objective is to open it up, to create more transparency and to put power where it belongs - and that's in the democratically-elected European Parliament." In response, the Commission suspended him on half pay for releasing details of an inquiry.[6]


PES leader Pauline Green tabled a vote of no confidence in the CommissionHowever it eventually supported the discharge 14 to 13 on 11 December, recommending that the plenary support the discharge. It was taken to plenary for debate four days later however the assigned rapporteur publicly went against the Committee's official position and urged the plenary to reject the discharge motion. President Santer announced that the Commission would treat the vote of discharge as one of confidence. In a vote on 1998-12-17, the Parliament denied the discharge.[7]

In response, on the basis it was tantamount to a vote of no confidence, the President of PES, Pauline Green, announced she would put forward a motion of censure. However PES would vote against its own motion, as there is no method for a motion of confidence. During this period, the Parliament took on an increase government-opposition dynamic, with PES as a party supporting the Commission and the EPP renouncing its support and acting as a de-facto opposition party to the executive.[7] This is in part because the allegations centred on Édith Cresson and Manuel Marín, both from the Socialist party (PES). It was seen by some that it was an attempt by the People's party (EPP) to discredit PES ahead of the 1999 elections. This led to hesitation from the PES leadership, who were the largest group in Parliament, to support the allegations.[5] Motions tabled by the two groups outlined the differing stances the EPP favouring individual responsibility (just those whom the main allegations are against) and PES favouring an emphasis on collective responsibility (so EPP members such as the President, as well as PES members, would be forced to resign). The PES resolution also proposed establishing a committee of independent experts to investigate the allegations.
2006 controversy:

[quote:2396pm76]2006 whistleblowing
On April 26, 2006, daily 20 Minutes revealed that "in May 2005, MEP Paul van Buitenen was shocked by Frits Bolkestein's presence to Menatep's international consultative council, a sulfurous Russian banking establishment, and by his work for Shell, British-Dutch petrol company. Two firms 'detaining secret accounts in Clearstream' ... van Buitenen, also Dutch, then asked for 'clarification' to the European Commission and the opening of a parliamentary investigation. The Commission's president, José Manuel Barroso, answered that these facts "don't bring up any new question" and that it is not known "if Menatep took contact with Bolkestein while he was in his functions". No investigation thereby took place." The free daily underlines that "in 2001, it was Bolkestein himself that announced the Commission's refusal to open up a parliamentary investigation on Clearstream", following Harlem Désir's requests and accusations that Menatep had an "undeclared account" at Clearstream. Bolkestein refused to answer any questions by the newspaper.[1]
[/quote:2396pm76]

The ever reliable Wikipedia! :roll:
 

fatcat

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
14
eurosceptic said:
Well with severe financial penalties on the way for failing to sort out corruption might we see the departure of bulgaria? I have to ask why we allowed her in! Corruption should have been substantially eliminated first.


Breaking News:
Fianna Fail, Fine Gael to be banned from EU.
 

McDave

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
13,557
eurosceptic said:
Well with severe financial penalties on the way for failing to sort out corruption might we see the departure of bulgaria? I have to ask why we allowed her in! Corruption should have been substantially eliminated first.
Dream on ES. Why would Bulgaria want to leave? To go back in with the Russians? The EU is it's only hope.

As for the reason for their quick accession (alongside Romania) I'll venture an important reason was to integrate vital oil pipeline territory directly into the EU. Apart from that, they might not have got in so quickly. But they would have got in soon enough anyway.
 

CelticAtheist

Active member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
112
I'm pro-EU, but kicking out the Bulgarians (and the Romanians as well possibly) would be nothing but beneficial for Europe..

They've contributed nothing, and all they do is beg (Romanians) or form highly organised criminal rings (Bulgarians).
 

evercloserunion

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
819
CelticAtheist said:
I'm pro-EU, but kicking out the Bulgarians (and the Romanians as well possibly) would be nothing but beneficial for Europe..

They've contributed nothing, and all they do is beg (Romanians) or form highly organised criminal rings (Bulgarians).
Have you ever been to either country??
 
Top