Pradikat of a neutrum in the singular or plural?

Hello I need professional help!
I am a student form germay and at the moment I learn english in New Zealand. I have recognized that native speakers often use a predikat in the singlular with a plural neutrum subject. for example:

"there is many pies left"
or
(john lennon) "there is no coutries"
so my question is: is that proper english?

what I know is that in anchient greek (a language I learn)
a rule exsists, that you have to use a predikat in the singular with a plural neutum subject.

At least here in Wisconsin, and in pretty much all North American English dialects that I know of, such only happens in the cliticized form "there's", which can be used with the singular or the plural, as opposed to "there is", which may only be used with the singular, despite the former just superficially being a version of the latter which involves the cliticization of "is". Hence, at least here, "There is many pies left" and "There is no countries" are ungrammatical, but "There's many pies left" and "There's no countries" are not.

I'm a native speaker from the US and what Travis said applies to my speech as well. Adrian, what you noticed occurs in many parts of the English-speaking world (if not all of them), so it's used by a lot of native speakers everywhere. In formal writing, "there are" is preferred but in normal speech "there's" with a plural referent is perfectly grammatical, as native speakers use it all the time.

Those constructions sound very odd to me, although sometimes I use the singular in speech as a contraction. I think this latter usage reflects the difficulty in pronouncing "there're," not to mention its questionable status gramatically. It's a lot easier to pronounce "there's a lot of people here" than it is to say "there're a lot of people here" (and it's a lot easier to understand it when you hear it). However, without the contraction, I always tend to use the correct number: "there are a lot of people here."