The following is by Bruno Waterfield, the Telegraph , Febr. 21, 2008 

I found the link at the always well-informed “EU Referendum” blog

“I first heard the rumours on Monday that led me here to details of a secret report that uncovered “extensive, widespread and criminal abuse” by Euro-MPs of staff allowances worth 100 million a year.

The EU is pretty frayed at the edge - also morally. Therefore, the Turkish flag´s Muslim halfmoon peeps from the background  

The first line from a Parliament spokesman I got was this: “The report does not name people but contains sensitive information that can easily be linked to individuals. For data protection reasons the report can not be published.

I also got: “The decision was made by the Secretary General himself (Harald Rømer, a powerful bureaucrat who manages the Parliament’s behind the scenes administration)… They do not want any collateral damage.”
Another well placed official explained: “Look we want reform and to do the right thing but we cannot make this report available to the public if we want people to vote in the European elections next year.”

As it became clear that the truth was out and there was a story – panic set in, and following a meeting between Mr Rømer, Hans-Gert Pöttering, the Parliament’s President and press aides the line changed. 

The EU CO2-Allocations traded at the Rothschild/Rockefeller/Al Gore Eropean Climate Exchange (ECX) market is one of the most lucrative EU Frauds. Who gets the EU-profits?  

The second line was this: “The document is not secret. It is confidential. It can be read by certain approved MEPs on the Budget Control Committee, in the secret room but not generally. That is not the same as a secret document nobody can read. This is a technical decision not a political one because it was taken by the auditor himself. The decision was not taken by the president or secretary general.”
But the denial that the decision was political is important.

Chris Davies´ letter ,written to OLAF, the EU’s anti-fraud squad, l'Office europen de lutte anti-fraude. He informed Mr Rømer.
As a member of the European Parliament's Budget Control Committee I was this morning permitted to read a copy of Internal Audit Report 06/02 on the parliamentary assistance allowance paid to MEPs for the employment of their staff.

I write to request that you immediately provide the Director-General of OLAF with a copy of this report.OLAF was established to uphold the principle that the European Institutions have a duty to guarantee, with regard to the taxpayer, the best use of their money and in particular to fight as effectively as possible against fraud and any other illegal activity harmful to the financial interests of the Community.

In my view the findings of the Parliament's internal auditors most definitely fall within OLAF's terms of reference. They are so serious that it should be assumed that criminal proceedings may follow. I believe that the parliamentary authorities have a duty immediately to open the entire matter to independent scutiny by those experienced in judging what is and what is not fraudulent activity.”

Statement the next day from the European parliament:

The European Parliament's competent bodies were informed this week of a report drawn up by its internal auditor on the efficacy of the system of payments to MEPs' assistants. The report was a systems analysis and looked at a sample of 167 payments and their supporting documents from 2004 and 2005. It did not look into individual MEPs' transactions and did not reveal cases of fraud.

The internal auditor, whose role within the European Parliament is entirely independent, confirmed existing concerns that the system of staff employment for MEPs has become far too complicated, with three different methods of contracting staff and 27 different national taxation, social security and administrative systems involved. Some MEPs' assistants work in Brussels and others work in the Member State of their MEP. The complexity of the contracting and payment system has made it extremely difficult to manage, both for MEPs and for Parliament's administration.

As the internal auditor's report has not revealed any individual cases of fraud, he has not recommended referring his findings to the EU anti-fraud agency OLAF. Had the auditor made such a recommendation, the Secretary General would, of course, have acted upon it. It is standard procedure for internal audit reports to be treated as confidential."

Bruno Waterfield´s comment
This text is a classic example of EU institutional stupidity. Bad news does not exist. And, anybody who says so is a liar (that’s you Chris). Eursoc also explores the mindset. Anyway it is terribly complicated accountancy thing – too complicated for you and definitely, definitely not fraud. Moreover, this actually a technical thing, a “systems analysis”, it is not a political thing.

Anybody who says it is a political thing is being critical. People who are critical are worse than the bad news (that doesn’t exist anyway), see England Expects for another example. To stop criticism, and the possibility people might confuse something technical (above their heads and not their business, i.e. confidential) it must be kept secret.

My Comments:

I cannot decide whether this is deliberate fraud – or a technicality.

1. Anyway the audit has stated that the EU spend 100 million taxpayer Euros a year quite unnecessarily.

2. This matter seems so grave even to the eurocrats that they insist on keeping it secret from the ignorant tax payers, who are being considered too stupid to understand the finer details of the ways this enormous sum has been squandered.

3. If the money had been legally spent it would have been in the interest of the eurocrats to have it explained to the Europeans, so that the eurocrates could keep up the appearance of honesty.

4. Since this would obviously not be possible after publication of this terrible audit 06/02 the eurocrats desperately try to limit the damage before the EU Parliamentary Elections in 2009.

5. There is a direct contradiction between the two lines: In the first it was stated, that the veto against publication of the Audit 06/02 was issued by the Secretary General himself. In the 2. line  this is negated.!!! 

6. One cannot help wondering if this tolerated EU criminality has wider implications to our national parliaments, who are remarkably tame, loyal and silent about the greatest high treason in history: The Euromediterranean/Eurabian Empire, its mass immigration, and its common market and economical integration with now 11 Muslim countries ( Albania and Mauritania have joined the Club) from  2010.  

I have previously reportet on flagrant EU corruption (Nov. 16) when the European court of Auditors refused to recognize the EU budget.  And how the EU bribes its NGOs in order to have the expected  support from the civil society for its undemocratic policies. Which is to keep up appearances of democracy!!
But the greatest EU fraud is the ECX Climate Exchange. See link at the middle Figure above.