I have adapted this from a longer text which has been flying around the Web for years (author unknown). It is, of course, only a joke, but it does, however, raise more serious questions about reforming the way in which English words are spelled. British and American dictionaries feature many different spelling variations, most of which are not based on pronunciation differences, but on who got to write the dictionary.

First though, here is the comic side of things:
The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the European Union rather than German, which was the other possibility. As part of the negotiations, the British Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5-year phase-in plan that would become known as “Euro-English”.

In the first year, “s” will replace the soft “c”. Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard “c” will be dropped in favour of “k”. This should klear up konfusion, and keyboards kan have one less letter.

There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome “ph” will be replaced with “f”. This will make words like fotograf 20% shorter.
In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the silent “e” in the languag is disgrasful and it should go away.

By the 4th yer people wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing “th” with “z” and “w” with “v”.
During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary “o” kan be dropd from vords kontaining “ou” and after ziz fifz yer, ve vil hav a reil sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand ech oza. Ze drem of a united urop vil finali kum tru. Und efter ze fifz yer, ve vil al be speking German like zey vunted in ze forst plas.
Now, this is all very funny, and such dramatic changes would probably create more ‘trubl and difikultis’ than clarity and ease, but I do think it is time to start making some small changes so that one dictionary would be enough, and translators wouldn’t have to ask, “Do you want it in British or American English?” Thanks to Mr Webster from the US, colour became color, through became thru, and programme became program – but only in America.
I’m not suggesting that we try to create a phonetic alphabet, because we don’t all speak English the same way, but some spellings are just plain crazy, inconsistent and very confusing. Take these four words as an example – thorough, through, thought, though. Now Brits and Americans pronounce them differently, but nobody pronounces them as the British spelling suggests. We could simply lose the ‘gh’ and end up with – thorou, throu, thout and thou. Any further tampering would conflict with regional variations in pronunciation.
Why do we use ‘ph’ instead of ‘f’ – and why can ‘c’ be pronounced as ‘s’ and ‘k’, often in the same word! In fact, as the joke suggests, we don’t need ‘c’ at all. I think we could start with the consonants first, make them consistent, and lose most of the silent letters as well.