Am in Berlin to talk to the German government and MPs on the new EU treaty. Can the Germans (whose turn it is to chair) deliver a compromise between the 22 Member States which want to keep the Constitutional Treaty intact (18 of which have already ratified it) and the two that have rejected it, while also satisfying those like Britain which have not yet ratified?

The game plan is clear: make as few changes to the original package as possible, but as many as necessary to secure agreement.

Obviously, I (and a majority in Parliament) would prefer changes of symbol to substance, of wording to content, in order to preserve the main reforms contained in the Constitutional Treaty. So, if the treaty is to be an amendment to the current treaties, rather than a codifying replacement "constitution", so be it. But if some substance does have to be sacrificed, let us at least keep those reforms that make the EU system more efficient, capable of delivering on those policies that we agree should be conducted at European level, and those which enhance its democratic accountability.

This is clearly the approach of Chancellor Merkel and her Foreign Secretary, acting as presidency deal-brokers. Good luck to them! They still have to overcome considerable divergence on the scope of the changes needed, from Poland's demand to revise the voting strengths in the Council of Ministers to the Dutch request to change the nature of the reference to fundamental rights. But the Germans remain optimistic that a deal can be made.

Germany's own position is simpler. The President of the Bundestag told me that they are happy to transfer sovereignty to the European Union on matters where common European policies are beneficial, provided such powers are not given to ministers and commissioners alone, but to the European Parliament. Would that it were so simple!