I couldn't claim to be surprised by the findings published this week by those investigating the European Commission. For some time now there have been rumours coming from the euro-zone that corruption was rife, fraud was rampant, budgets were haywire and nepotism was at a post-Borgia high.
But these were just rumours so they were dosed with a pinch of salt and put aside.
And then we heard they were being investigated. The salt was shaken off and we made the smoke and fire connections. By the time the investigators reported, we were expecting pretty much what we got.
Then the Commissioners became the 20 musketeers and resigned en masse. Granted it was the right thing to do; the Commission had been disgraced by what had happened. Many of the musketeers hadn't been named in the report, our own Mr Padraig Flynn, for example, but the misdeeds of others were so widespread that the entity of which they were component parts had lost our trust.
It was only right and proper that each of them demonstrate that the buck did stop with them by quitting their posts. Oddly, it seemed to be the first time they had behaved as one.
Key to the allegations made against the Commission was the clash of national cultures which led each Commissioner to run his or her area in a sometimes bizarre manner.
The claim was made that each Commissioner brought his of her national system and standards of government to bear on their fiefdoms. This wanders very close to racism: "Ah, sure the (insert nationality) are well known for taking bribes/hiring their brothers-inlaw/lining their own pockets."
Yet it also demonstrates a key problem with the concept of a united Europe. We aren't all that similar. The Greeks, Swedes, Portuguese, Irish, French and Germans are not cut from the same cloth. None better or worse, none more or less valid, just different.
In business terms, what was being attempted was a merger on a grand scale. And, while the structures were put slowly in place, one key element was ignored: culture.
Any major merger carried out in business today treats the melding of corporate cultures as a priority. Enormous effort is put into identifying each organisation's unique habits and traditions and creating a framework within which these conventions can operate.
No such framework exists within the Commission and so a culture clash was inevitable.
However, before all this happened, I had assumed, along with most others, that the layers of bureaucracy which wrapped all things European would negate the problem. It was believed that being wrapped in red tape would limit the Eurocrats' movements so much that they would be forced to behave like automatons.
Unfortunately, the only solution to the problem now is more rules. Specific codes of conduct will have to be drawn up which address the behaviour of the commissioners and their underlings and take into account the cultures brought together in Brussels.
THIS is a particularly badly timed crisis. The Commission is often seen as remote, a curiosity which doesn't seem to directly affect us. Right now, it is engaged in a change which affects every one of us: the introduction of the euro.
During the change, people are naturally going to be suspicious. You take away someone's cash and replace it with new notes and coins of a different denomination and they are bound to wonder if they've lost out. They need to know that the people looking after the switch are entirely trustworthy. A massive financial scandal at head office is not going to help.
So many other issues also need resolving. Agenda 2000, EU enlargement, CAP reform, the future of the structural funds and, in particular, this State's concerns about regional priorities.
It is curious that, with all of these issues being decided in Europe, the reaction to the resignations has been relatively muted. The reason is that we still treat the Commission as remote. Until the actual physical swapping of old cash for new happens, I think we still will.
What cannot be allowed to happen is for a public under-reaction to be translated into an under-reaction at EU level. The new systems I mentioned earlier have to be thorough, they have to be implemented quickly and, most importantly, they have to be seen to be implemented.
The citizens of Europe will need a reassuringly solid and dependable Commission even though we may not realise it just yet.
The European leaders need to act quickly to replace the Commission. The new Commission needs to be appointed, not as an interim measure, but to serve for a five-year term. In this way, its focus will be in the right direction.
It will also send a clear message to us Europeans: someone is really in charge, someone who can, and will, make changes, rather than a caretaker who will just watch the shop and do none of the radical work which has to be done.
One European body came out of all this well. The MEPs have felt isolated and powerless for a long time. Because they were able to take decisive action in calling in the auditors, the Parliament has effectively come of age.
It has discovered its powers and acted in the public interest. Its members can now truly refer to themselves as real partners with the other European institutions. They will be key to rebuilding the public trust which has been damaged over the past week.