Off to London for a seminar to mark the mid point of the British Presidency of the EU Council. Denis McShane, the previous Minister for Europe, and myself were invited to speak.

Of course, we agreed on much: the Presidency is right to focus on major issues of concern (economic reform, the future of the European social model, the medium-term budget, CAP reform etc) rather than trying, at this stage, to pre-empt the 'period of reflection' on the constitution by proposing to renegotiate the text. Tony Blair's speech to the European Parliament at the start of the presidency was extremely successful in refocusing the agenda.

We also agreed that the presidency affords only limited opportunities. It's not an executive office, but merely the chairmanship of one of the EU institutions for a short period with a largely inherited agenda. One of its pitfalls is exaggerated expectations of it.

To liven things up, we did our best to disagree on details! Denis couldn't resist a few populist digs at MEPs, moaning that a few “out of touch” MEPs consider the EU constitution to be still a live issue - in which case a fair number of national governments must also be out of touch!

He also raised yet again an idea that failed to get any support in previous discussions on EU reform, namely that a 'second chamber' be added to the European Parliament composed of delegations from national parliaments. When I pointed out that we already have a two-chamber system in that EU legislation has to go through up to three readings in both Parliament and the Council, he says that there is no way Tony Blair would consider himself to be a mere senator!

No doubt - and as Prime Minister, Tony is a member of the key EU strategic decision-taking body, the European Council. But ordinary departmental ministers dealing with routine legislation in the normal Council are indeed part of a bicameral legislature in that legislation must be approved both by the Council and the European Parliament. To change that into a complex three-chamber system, with a new body composed of national parliamentarians, would scarcely make EU decision-taking procedures easier or clearer. Many people already now find the system too complex, so what it would be like with a three institutions having to agree, heaven only knows.

Besides, the pre-1979 European Parliament was composed of delegations from national parliaments - and it didn't work! The MPs found they couldn't do two full time jobs simultaneously, and majorities depended on which national delegation was missing due to a key vote in their national parliament. That is why the original European Parliament was changed into a full-time elected Parliament.

There is no doubt that the institutional structure of the EU will need revisiting. But this is one idea that won't float!