The Commission's ratification of IFRS 8, which deals with operating segments and is closely based on the US's FAS 131, was previously scheduled for late May/early June, but has now been taken off the timetable.

After the expiration of what, in retrospect, seems a suspiciously quiet consultation period, UK critics have been expressing their reservations over IFRS 8 direct to Brussels. Reportedly, Tweedie was approached first, but argued the complaints were simply too late.

In his last big Brussels bout, the straight-talking Scot had to contend with the vested interest of French banks over the implantation of IAS 29. This time his foe is quite different: institutional investors and organisations like the Investment Management Association (IMA), the National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF) and the Association of British Insurers (ABI). In short, the "users" of financial reporting, rather than the "producers".

Although reluctant to raise their heads above the parapet, the fiercest critics of IFRS 8 come from the private sector, where many see it as a lowering of standards. “IFRS 8 has more holes than a dishcloth,” said one city source.

Objections to the standard are manifold, but general areas of concern include the importance placed on "the chief operating decision maker", the failure to require cash flow or liability analysis by segment, and a fear that US standards are simply being adopted unilaterally when the underlying framework in the US is completely different from that in many EU member states.

Stig Enevoldsen, chairman at EFRAG, the European Financial Advisory Reporting Group set up to assist the EC in IFRS endorsement, confirmed that ratification has been delayed. It is thought the decision for the timetable change comes straight from the European parliament; if so, the dissenters' lobbying clearly carried some weight.