BRUSSELS' AUDIT REFORM proposals were due to be presented in a press conference this week.

Internal markets commissioner Michel Barnier has led the charge, and his office told Accountancy Age more pressing matters had parliament otherwise engaged, delaying publication until 30 November.

Barnier's spokeswoman admitted it might be even longer, saying she "has not yet received final arrangements for next week".

The potential collapse of Greece, Portugal and other southern cousins is unlikely to be resolved in seven days, and all the time Barnier's radical agenda risks losing impetus.

Mid-tier firms have argued the delay has nothing to do with eurozone crisis, and everything to do with pressure from powerful anti-audit reformers.

BDO senior audit partner James Roberts said: "It's clearly a fabulous lobbying job. I think Brussels is pretty shocked and awed by the degree of lobbying."

Big Four voices suggested there has been substantial resistance from member states, claiming the far-reaching proposals have spurred politicians and big business into action.

Lobbying is really just another word for persuasion, and all interested parties have the right to reasonably influence the debate.

If the delay is simply down to Brussels' distraction by the foundering Euro, Barnier's supporters might have little to fear.

However, if the commissioner has met stalwart resistance to his plans and this is the reason for the postponement, change could be afoot.

When the draft reforms were revealed by Accountancy Age in September, experts' main observation was that all measures from Barnier's original proposal remained on the table.

At the time, Barnier's office suggested the draft was very close to the expected final version. However, yesterday a spokeswoman said: "We will probably see some changes. It's very normal in political debate to see some changes before proposals are finally adopted."

As Barnier stood by his reforms despite fierce early resistance, a climb-down now would still seem unlikely. There would have to be a lot of pushback to effect a u-turn at such a late stage.

If, as some experts maintain, Barnier has a personal vendetta against the Big Four, lobbying by them would probably fall upon deaf ears. Business interests are much more likely to be impacting events.

The UK Hundred Group of FTSE-leader finance directors has attacked Barnier's headline reforms, including pure audit firms, mandatory joint audits and mandatory rotation.

BusinessEurope, which represents 20 million companies across 35 countries, had equally trenchant things to say about the proposals, and their needling is likely to make MEPs sit up and take notice.

One person's lobbying is another person's participation in the political debate, and the fact that it has potentially been strong enough to push Barnier off course means his vision for audit reform is far from reality.

BRUSSELS is pushing joint audit hard, and mid-tier firms agree the proposed reform would help break open the market, especially for large public-interest entities.

Detractors argue the costs would far outweigh the benefits, with audit quality threatened by issues falling through the gaps between two firms and fees climbing.

Architect of the proposals, internal markets commissioner Michel Barnier, said shared audit would have the advantage of "two pairs of eyes", and denied the process would lead to the doubling up of work.

Surely this is a contradiction in terms? Either two sets of auditors provide assurance on the same part of the audit, or they split the work to avoid duplication.

Barnier cannot have it both ways. If he is imagining two auditors survey certain key parts of the audit and divide the rest, this should be explicitly outlined. Which areas would merit two pairs of eyes, and who gets to decide?

More details please, Brussels.

THE EURO is in trouble, finance ministers are drowning in sovereign debt, and Brussels insiders say UK lobbyists have about as much credibility as a Greek bond. So why has the Department for Business stuck out its neck on audit reform?

A leaked BIS email called on European counterparts to lobby against the European Commission's proposed audit reforms and provided a draft briefing to coordinate member state complaints, the International Accounting Bulletin reported.

Big Four insiders said BIS has been "sympathetic and responsive" to their concerns about the proposals, which include mandatory auditor rotation and joint audits for the largest companies.

Frequent dialogue between BIS and accountancy's top dogs might explain the government's eagerness to ensure anti-audit reform voices carry weight in Brussels.

One Big Four insider said the firms "know everything" BIS is up to, and "have to be told in advance" if its activities will significantly affect their business.

However, the mid-tier is also confident of its rapport with BIS. One top-ten firm spokesperson agreed the leaked email was "not very helpful", but insisted their relationship with the government department remains "good".

The email is all the more surprising given recent developments, including the referral of the audit market to the Competition Commission.

Brussels has implied its reforms will reduce concentration at the top of the market, and recent government actions - including the House of Lords inquiry and subsequent Office of Fair Trading investigation - suggest the coalition shares Brussels' concerns.

So why the apparent volte-face? Could it be that government is happy with a little nip-tuck in the UK, but an EU-wide regulatory cudgel is a bit too scary?

BIS has "severe concerns" that some of the EC's proposals "do not support EU growth ... impose unnecessary regulation on business" and could damage audit quality.

Mandatory joint audit and pure audit firms are its biggest bugbears, and it fears auditor rotation will be expensive and unpalatable to clients on quality grounds.

One critic has suggested the email is a "misguided" civil servant effort rather than a political statement, arguing it does not reflect the UK's official stance.

However, the force of its message and presumed distribution list might suggest something else - that BIS thinks Brussels' reform is a load of rubbish, and is prepared to put its money where its mouth is.

Experts have criticised the European Commission's approach to audit reform, saying proposals bear no relation to supposed problems, and the whole shebang stems from internal markets commissioner Barnier's deep dislike of the Big Four.

Given the sensitivities around audit reform and the UK political backdrop - Cameron recently faced his biggest parliamentary revolt as 79 backbenchers called for a referendum on Europe - it seems BIS's dislike of Barnier's plans is too strong to be stifled.

ON FRIDAY, the Office of Fair Trading delivered the verdict we were all waiting for - a call for the powerful Competition Commission to investigate audit.

After a tumultuous year for the profession, the announcement didn't make quite as many ripples as it might have.

Audit has been in the spotlight since the dread financial crisis of 2008, possibly because slating accountants is a less scary prospect than tackling the banks.

In late 2010, the House of Lords turned its attention to audit competition and choice and the Big Four was up in arms about a possible referral to the OFT, denying claims of excessive concentration at the top of the market.

In April, chancellor George Osborne used the Budget to call for an end to banking covenants, saying the clauses - which force clients to choose a Big Four auditor - are bad for business.

So when the Lords finally unveiled their conclusions in late June, the Big Four had adopted more of a conciliatory stance, while the mid-tier were hopeful of dramatic recommendations

Sure enough, the Lords asked the OFT to take a look, and in came the barrage of comments, complaints and congratulations.

But last week's revelation that the OFT has called in its scarier big brother, the Competition Commission, has elicited little more than lacklustre murmuring.

Partly, this is because the referral was widely expected, and stakeholders have already made their positions clear.

In July, the OFT announced the preliminary conclusions of its inquiry into a possible Competition Commission referral, and all signs pointed to yes.

It then undertook a further six-week consultation, during which the Big Four expressed little hope of avoiding a referral and the mid-tier tried to be gracious in their jubilation.

So when a commission investigation was finally announced, nobody was very surprised.

However, there is a bigger reason the decision has provoked little reaction, and that is the spectre of Brussels' audit reform.

In September, Accountancy Age obtained the European Commission's draft audit reform paper, and the proposals it contained goaded stakeholders into furious commentary and debate.

Suddenly, the prospect of a UK-focused competition investigation seemed positively welcome to the Big Four, when set against the apparently unbounded radicalism of EC proposals.

Where before the Big Four bemoaned the Competition Commission's costly two-year investigation, now they praise the watchdog for its focus on evidence and empirical conclusions, comparing it favourably to Barnier's "personal crusade".

Mid-tier firms maintain their support for the OFT's referral, but their eyes too are focused on the bigger prize of EU-level measures, and their response to the Competition Commission announcement was consequently muted.

It seems that to push through controversial decisions, one need only have a bigger, scarier alternative on the horizon, encouraging stakeholders to welcome the first option with open arms.

LAST WEEK, the Federation of European Accountants summoned the great and the good to put their heads together on some of the industry's knottiest issues.

Keynote speakers included the dread commissioner Barnier (pictured) and James Doty, chairman of US regulator the PCAOB. Our very own Stephen Haddrill, head of the Financial Reporting Council, also held forth, and topics for discussion included the role of audit and building a European market.

So what did these giants of accountancy have to say? Starting with Barnier - as the firms are straining for any indicator of his plans - observers won't be surprised to hear him trotting out his "status quo is not an option" line once again; reading between the none-too-subtle lines, the commissioner means business.

Again, he went straight for mandatory rotation, saying it is essential to find a balance between "excessive rotation that would damage audit quality" and auditor independence.

Perhaps more worrying for the Big Four, but welcomed by smaller peers, was his pronouncement on non-audit services; Barnier said they should be limited at the very least "or perhaps outlawed", adding: "I wonder whether it might be necessary to go as far as proposing 'pure audit firms'."

Moving on to Doty before the firms start perspiring too hard; his three hot topics were the relevance and value of audit; auditor-client relationships; and the role of audit participants such as regulators.

Compared to Barnier's trio of obsessions - auditor independence; reducing concentration; and boosting integration and supervision Europe-wide -auditors might wish they lived on the other side of the pond.

However, Doty wasn't too soft of the industry, saying countries desperately need a more relevant and reliable financial information about risks, and for regulatory loopholes to be zipped up tight.

He touched upon the PCAOB's recent proposals for the auditor's reporting model, and waxed lyrical about the importance of cooperation between national regulators.

Haddrill's speech is not available, but if the others are anything to go by, he will have trotted out some well-worn themes. All in all, perhaps little new from the big names, but a good chance for industry heavyweights to get together and further the debate on audit.