The contract would set out basic German "values," including "freedom of speech" and "equal rights for women". The idea behind this is the club: if you join you have to accept the rules. "Anyone who wants to live here for a long time," says the minister, "and who wants to work has to say 'yes' to our country".

In different forms ideas like this are surfacing across Europe. The concern is that significant parts of European cities exist as "parallel societies". There is not a shared identity and so there is not a common citizenship. Politicians are concerned that if communities do not relate to each other it is easy for rumour and prejudice to flourish.

Initially one of the basic tenets of multiculturalism was that newcomers brought with them their own culture, which was respected. Increasingly, however, the mood is changing - migrants are expected to integrate and embrace a country's basic values.

The French are currently debating national identity and emphasizing "core values". The French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, has said that all beliefs are respected in France, but "becoming French means adhering to a form of civilisation, to values, to morals".

The French Immigration Minister, Eric Besson, said "we must reaffirm the values of national identity and of the pride in being French". He wants the Marseillaise to be sung as often as possible and the French flag flown. A parliamentary commission is looking into banning the burka - the veil that covers everything but the eyes. The French president has already given his view that "France is a country where there is no place for the burka".

Britain, too, has introduced citizenship tests. Migrants have to take language and citizen classes designed to help them integrate better. Only the other day Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that "British people want to be assured that newcomers will accept the responsibilities as well as the rights that come with living here, obeying the law, speaking English, and making contributions".

Identity has been a subject that politicians have been wary of but now, as a subject, it has become mainstream. Across Europe they detect voter unease and they want to head off that concern finding expression with extreme parties.

In 2001 I covered riots in the northern British town of Oldham. The far right acted as provocateur, but a mainly Muslim enclave called the Glodwick estate battled with the police. Five years later I returned. What struck me was how separate the communities had become. As far as I recall, the school in the estate did not have a single non-Muslim pupil.The headteacher told me that she could not talk to some of the mothers because they rarely left their houses. Occasionally the children were put on a bus and taken to another part of town so they could meet children from other cultures.

What rarely happened was that a child would go to a friend's home after school and so experience and enjoy different traditions. Now the situation there may well have changed, but I encountered a concern then about "parallel societies" - that they could not just be breeding grounds for myths about others but that they weakened the idea of the common bond.

It is natural for immigrants, when they first arrive, to want to live amongst their own community. It is often the only way to find work. In New York you still find a significant number of Irish or Italians working in the fire department or the port authority. But the vast majority of arrivals wanted to become "American" and to embrace their new country with all its customs and values.

In Europe the views of the ethnic minorities differ hugely. A poll in France found that only 4% of Muslims there want to live exclusively among other Muslims. In Britain some migrants from Pakistan and Kashmir are more cautious about living alongside other communities in the giant melting pot that is Britain today.

In Switzerland this weekend voters will be asked to decide whether to ban the construction of minarets. There are only about 300,000 Muslims in the country and many of them are from the Balkans and so do not practise Islam. But a handful of minarets has become an issue. As has happened before in Switzerland, the debate is surrounded by controversial posters, including one showing a woman in a burka standing by a Swiss flag flanked by minarets which look like missiles.

I covered the last similar referendum in Switzerland. Then the immigrant was portrayed as a "black sheep". Many rejected the tone of the debate, but it was not difficult to find people fearful that their known world was disappearing, that their national identity was being diluted.

So, across Europe, there is an active debate as to whether more should be asked of migrants to embrace the societies they are joining.

There used to be a view that Europe's leaders preferred backroom deals to the harsher light of open debate.

There used to be a view that, despite its economic power, Europe punched below its weight on the world stage. Other nations were frustrated at having to phone numerous European capitals in a crisis. It used to be said that the world was becoming a G2 - America and China, with Europe excluded.

So began a long, divisive process to change how Europe functioned. It ended up with the Lisbon Treaty. The larger union of 27 nations would function more efficiently and Europe finally would have powerful leaders who would rub shoulders with Obama and Putin.

Wind forward to the present. The key power-brokers in the choice of Herman Van Rompuy and Baroness Catherine Ashton were the French and the Germans. President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel coordinated their approach. They agreed not to oppose each other in selecting the candidates for Europe's top jobs.

They went for the Belgian Prime Minister, Van Rompuy, not because he was the best leader for the job. Germany's Angela Merkel said he offered "consensus". It is an interesting word that can be interpreted in many different ways. In Europe it often means "the person that is least objectionable". Some interpret it as "the lowest common denominator".

It should be said that Van Rompuy does not arrive empty-handed. He is an effective mediator but he is not a communicator who can sell where Europe stands. It will be interesting to see when he gives his first international interviews.

The key for the French and Germans was not to have a Blair-like figure who might overshadow them. The laws of power have not changed by the signing of a treaty.

In any system there is always some backroom horse-trading. It is not necessarily sinister. In the past few days Gordon Brown knew that Tony Blair would not make it, yet he and his ministers continued to support him publicly. It strengthened their hands in the deal-making. The French and Germans knew that if Tony Blair's name remained on the table it could split the member states. They were desperate to avoid it.

It enabled Gordon Brown to go to a meeting of the Socialist group of leaders yesterday and essentially trade in Blair for Cathy Ashton. From the British point of view it was not a bad deal. They have someone who is the Vice President of the Commission and at the heart of decision-making.

Earlier this week the British felt what support there was for Tony Blair was draining away. The final straw came on Tuesday evening, when diplomats received a Swedish paper detailing what the job of president involved. Under the Lisbon Treaty it had been left vague. There was mention of the need for a consensus-builder, a good chair of meetings. What had slipped away in the night was the role of being the voice of the EU on the world stage.

In that note the British understood the job had been redefined in a way that would not suit Tony Blair. He was called by Downing Street and by Thursday morning he knew it was over for him.

Of perhaps greater significance was the new emphasis of the job. The ambitions of the EU have been lowered. They have backed away from a powerful figure sitting at the world's top table. After being appointed Van Rompuy joked that he was anxiously waiting by his phone to be called in the event of a crisis. It was a joke because world
leaders will continue to make their first calls to Paris, Berlin and London. Part of the federalist dream has faded.

That is why some of those applauding the appointments are Eurosceptics. They can live with a relatively low-profile "chairman". It does not seem like another step towards a "superstate".

So the EU, in many ways, is back where it was. Certainly, under the new voting system it will be easier to reach decisions among the 27 member countries. But in choosing relative unknowns the EU has signalled it does not want new centres of power to challenge the nation states.

The concern was that Europe would not have a seat at the highest table beside America and China. Only recently the British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, had argued that Europe needed a president who would stop the traffic in Beijing.

But over dinner in Brussels, the leaders came up with a compromise. The job of President of the European Council was given to the Belgian Prime Minister, Herman van Rompuy. He has been successful in negotiating between the French and Flemish factions in Belgium. He is, by all accounts, a good mediator. He probably is able at chairing meetings, but he has no international reputation. He is camera-shy, a man who some refer to as the "grey mouse". He will struggle to command attention when he travels on behalf of Europe.

There is a key to understanding today. The job description for the post of president was changed. In a paper, the Swedes essentially side-lined the part of the role that related to international affairs. The president they envisaged would chair meetings and co-ordinate the agenda. This was now an introspective post. The Lisbon Treaty, however, was quite clear of its intentions. "The President of the European Council... shall ensure the external representation of the Union on issues concerning its common foreign and security policy..."

The power brokers were France and Germany. They still drive much of European Union policy. In this, they co-ordinated their position. Van Rompuy was their man. He was from the right political grouping. He was also from a small party. But crucially he would not over-shadow them. When it comes to an international crisis, the first calls are still likely to be directed towards the Elysee Palace in Paris and the Chancellery in Berlin.

The other key job also went to a relative unknown. Catherine Ashton is the UK's Commissioner in Brussels. She is now the EU's foreign policy supremo. She was not the first choice and she got the job as a result of what looks like a trade-off. The French and Germans wanted Gordon Brown to give up on Blair and in exchange the British got the No 2 job.

It is a significant post, running not just a diplomatic service but being Vice-President of the Commission. Catherine Ashton has little experience in foreign affairs but she has a good reputation for competence. What she will not be able to do in the short-term is speak with a convincing voice about Iran, Afghanistan and the Middle East.

Carl Bildt, a veteran of the European scene, warned today against picking weak candidates. He said Europe would miss a historic occasion and that could diminish Europe's voice in the world.

They have accepted for some time that the prevailing mood among EU leaders is for a low-profile chairman rather than a more charismatic president with international connections.

It also seems there has been a deal done, whereby the top job will almost certainly go to someone from the centre-right rather than the centre-left and that, too, excludes Tony Blair.

The former Labour prime minister has never offcially declared himself a candidate but he is not expecting a late-night call to head to Brussels.

There is still a slender chance that if the dinner tonight is deeply split, Tony Blair's name could yet emerge, but that is not now thought likely by Blair himself.

It is not even clear how the dinner will be conducted. Will there be a wide-ranging
discussion of various candidates? Will there be an early show of hands? And if it comes down to majority voting, what formula will be used?

There is mounting criticism of the way the Swedes have run the selection process.
As rotating President of the Council it fell to the Swedish Prime Minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, to try and find a compromise candidate acceptable to all. He has made two rounds of phone calls, but some diplomats say there is a lack of trust that all names are being fairly considered. It all depends on how you frame the discussion. One of those with a knowledge of what has been happening said "I've heard people talk of mistrust".

Others are complaining about a lack of transparency; that a job that is at the heart of the Lisbon Treaty should be decided by horse-trading behind closed doors is very damaging. What European voters are not being told is what kind of Europe these potential candidates believe in. One former Europe minister said, "they'll never again get away with something like this". One claim of the Lisbon Treaty was that it would deliver greater scrutiny and openness, but many are saying this has all the transparency of a papal conclave.

And then the candidate is not just being selected on who is the best qualified for the job. There are trade-offs between political groupings, between left and right, between large countries and small countries, between men and women.

There is a growing mood of suspicion. Quite a few countries are deliberately shielding their hands, waiting to see what happens when the leaders meet face to face.

There are suggestions that the Germans and the French will meet beforehand. It looks as if they will hold a joint press conference before the dinner. Some of the smaller countries will resist any attempt for these key decisions to be carved up between the French and the Germans.

In the meantime the British are still fighting for Tony Blair. Gordon Brown is likely to argue that the most important part of the Lisbon Treaty was the plan to give Europe a much stronger position on the world stage. Europe, in his view, needs a politician with an international name and, without doubt, Tony Blair is the best known.

What is unclear is how insistent Gordon Brown will be. But if the mood is for the Belgian Prime Minister, Herman van Rompuy, the British may put up strong resistance. They will point out that, for all his mediating skills, the Belgian has zero international recognition and they see him as wanting to increase Brussels's powers.

As each day passes new names surface and flash briefly across the screens of those following this race.

Late last week the Swedes were briefing that if the dinner were held immediately the Belgian Prime Minister, Herman Van Rompuy, would get the job of President of the European Council. He was the low-key figurehead favoured by the French and the Germans. But in this game of horse-trading it is dangerous to get out in front.

Once Van Rompuy had become the established favourite attention turned to his record. There was his successful deal-making in Belgium which limited antagonisms between French and Dutch speakers. What was less clear was his vision for Europe.

Some find this whole secretive process disturbing. Names are tossed around without Europe's voters being able to hear from them or to assess what they stand for. It prompted Vaira Vike-Freiberga, a former Latvian president, to demand that the EU "stop working like the former Soviet Union... in darkness and behind closed doors".

Further research into Van Rompuy soon revealed that at a meeting of the shadowy but influential Bilderberg Group he suggested EU-wide taxes might be needed to support the expanding EU budget. His party seems to favour the gradual replacement of national symbols with EU symbols. The revelations at once make him a controversial choice with sections of the European electorate. It could even make it difficult for some countries to support him.

It is in this context that the candidacy of Tony Blair still flickers. Without an agreed
candidate for president there could be a vote and the former Labour leader might still come through. Certainly the British government is still pushing his name.

There are signs that others, like the Poles, believe that potential candidates need to be heard from. The Swedes, who hold the rotating presidency, say it is impossible to open up the process because many potential office-holders hold power and to run for a European job would undermine their standing back home.

So, in this vacuum, other names are touted. Their merits are weighed less in terms of how they would perform but more as to how they would affect the balance between political groupings and small countries versus large countries.

Meanwhile from the sidelines are voices reminding Europe's leaders that the rest of the world is watching. This from a state department official in Washington: "It's up to post-Lisbon Europe to put its house in order in a way that would allow us to be effective partners. Europe's choices in the coming months are going to be very important."

As I said yesterday, Europe's leaders long for greater influence but fear any diminution of their own powers.

They will have to decide who will be the European Union's face to the world. For nearly ten years European leaders have been discussing how to sit alongside the Chinese and Americans at the top table. One of the key strands to the Lisbon Treaty was creating two high-profile posts; a president of the European Council and a foreign policy supremo.

But as the hour of decision approaches there is uncertainty and, just beneath the surface, there are real divisions.

The task of drawing up a short-list for these top European jobs falls to the Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt. His aim is to turn up at the dinner and give the leaders a small number of names to consider. What is not being sought here is lively discussion or a pitch from the candidates or an opportunity to tell Europeans what their vision is for the future of the union.The Swedish prime minister wants a dinner where the successful candidate is toasted, not debated.

The fear that haunts this whole process is that Europe might appear divided or that any public disagreement might undermine the authority of the successful candidate.
What this means, of course, is that these key posts will be decided by horse-trading, a familiar European way of doing business.

The mood that seems to be emerging is for a compromise candidate, a chairman rather than a president who strides the global stage. That suits many. The big countries, when it comes down to it, don't want to be over-shadowed by a presidential figure. The small countries fear a strong personality could diminish their influence. And those like the Conservatives in Britain who did not support the Lisbon Treaty want as bland a candidate as possible. As William Hague told the Financial Times: "It makes more sense for the president to be a chairman, not a chief." And a chairman sounds less like
a super-state in the making.

These jobs, however, are not being chosen on the sole criteria of who will be the most effective leader. As so often in Europe jobs are carved up between various political groupings. The socialists have indicated they want the foreign minister's post. That means that the president is likely to come from the centre-right. Then there is the gender balance. Two powerful women, Margot Wallstrom and Neelie Kroes, said today that it looked as if "only men would be nominated". They pointed out that "the right man in the right job is often a woman". Politics, gender and geography all are put in the mix.

So where does this leave Tony Blair, the original favourite for the president's job?
If the emerging consensus is for a meeting-chairer he won't get the job and he won't want it. Late last week he spoke to President Sarkozy among others and he has not removed his name from consideration. The British government is still backing him energetically. When the German foreign minister was in London last week a senior government figure made a strong personal pitch for Tony Blair.

There is one scenario where Tony Blair could still get the call. If there is no agreement at the dinner, the Swedish prime minister will have to call a vote and that would be weighted according to country size. In those circumstances, Tony Blair could sneak it. He could have in his corner Britain, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Latvia, the Czech republic and several other Eastern European countries. His problem would be whether he wanted a job when there was so clearly opposition to him getting it.

If, in the end, European leaders go for a little-known consensus-builder some will argue Europe flunked its moment of decision. Expect comments like this which I saw from a politician in the past few days: "We've been talking about these jobs for almost 10 years and it is now almost as if people are getting cold feet about giving them to serious global players."

A few weeks ago the President of the Commission Jose Manuel Barroso raised the old question of who world leaders should call to discover where Europe stood. After these new posts are filled, he said, Washington would call the high representative on foreign affairs. Just one call. But after Thursday the two most powerful figures in Europe will remain President Sarkozy abnd Chancellor Merkel.

The indications are that when it comes down to it, Europe's leaders aspire to speak with a more assertive voice, but not at the expense of their own influence. It is rare in history that leaders vote for a diminution of their own power. They seem unlikely to do so this week.

The executive search for the two top European jobs is proving difficult. There has been a first and inconclusive round of phone calls. There are more potential candidates than jobs. And just beneath the surface are fierce currents and rivalries. There could well be public disputes before the names are chosen at dinner in Brussels a week on Thursday.

To step back for a moment. The Lisbon Treaty had two big aims: to make the European Union run more efficiently and to give it a stronger voice on the world stage. The key to achieving those goals was two high-profile jobs. The President of the European Council and the bureaucratic-sounding High Representative for Foreign Affairs.

Narrowing down the field is the responsibility of the Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt. He had some face-to-face meetings with other leaders in Berlin on Monday, the others he has been calling. When he spoke to Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister put forward the name of Tony Blair - but not David Miliband.

The first difficulty is that some of these leaders are potential candidates. If they reveal their interest and don't get the job that will embarrass them at home.

The Swedish leader would like to arrive at the dinner next week with one name for both key jobs, but that is ambitious. There is still no agreement as to the kind of person they want as president. Do they want a bland consensus-builder or do they want someone
who can sit at the same table as the Chinese and American presidents?

That has not been settled. Neither should Tony Blair be ruled out. He was the clear front-runner but was regarded as damaged by his support for the invasion of Iraq and the fact that Britain was not a member of the euro. In the way that jobs are carved up in Brussels, the Socialist group of leaders indicated that they wanted someone of their political persuasion in the foreign minister's role, not the presidency.

But this is now a game about power. Despite the ambitions of the Lisbon Treaty many leaders don't want to be overshadowed by a strong president. That would count against Blair. The French and the Germans are said to have settled on the Belgian Prime Minister, Herman Van Rompuy, as a compromise candidate. He is clearly the current favourite and if the dinner were held tonight he would most likely be chosen. However, the impression that Paris and Berlin are carving this up would almost certainly cause opposition elsewhere and could persuade others to come behind Tony Blair.

Even though the French and the Germans are regarded as the power-brokers what happens if Britain and Italy fight for Tony Blair? Who will break the deadlock? It opens the way for deals and horse-trading and the emergence of a candidate that may not yet be in the field.

There are other dimensions to this power struggle. The tension between the small and large states. The differences between old Europe and the newer Eastern and Central European states.

And then there is the issue of how these candidates are chosen. Should the decisions be taken through a series of phone calls? Should the new faces of the EU be settled by secret deal-making? The Poles have suggested job interviews. Others believe that potential candidates should make a public pitch, so people know what they stand for.

The Swedish prime minister is very keen to have a consensus candidate who has the full backing of all 27 leaders. He is desperate to avoid a row or reverting to majority voting.

As for the "foreign minister" job, there is the curious case of David Miliband. In a matter of 10 days he had moved to a position where he was the favourite for the job. Support for him came from left and right. For a man who insisted he did not want the job he gave every appearance of running for it.

He gave a series of interviews and a detailed speech on Europe's place in the world. He said what many other European leaders wanted to hear. And yet he has counted himself out. One official in Brussels said it looks like a case of "political flirting". There may be another calculation behind this round of activity. The fact that so many in Europe have been impressed with him is good for his candidacy come the moment when Gordon Brown is no longer leader of the Labour Party.

The next seven days will tell us a great deal about power and how decisions are taken in the new European Union.

In the early afternoon a crowd gathered at the Bornholmer bridge. This was the first crossing point to open on that night 20 years ago.

The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel was there. She is the first German leader to have grown up in East Germany.

With her was the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. He resisted using force to keep the wall in place. There was loud applause for him. Angela Merkel told him "you made this possible. You let this happen."

Also in the crowd was Lech Walesa, the former leader of Solidarity, the free trade union in Poland. Angela Merkel said it was very important that the first challenge to Soviet power and Communist rule came from working people. "That gave us courage," she said today.

She walked across the bridge surrounded by photographers and large crowds. "It was necessary today for us to return to this point together, to come back in order to celebrate what became possible on 9 November 1989.

"It was," she said, "the result of a long story of oppression and the struggle against oppression".

They passed a black and white poster of a Trabant triumphantly heading into the west twenty years ago.

When the German Chancellor spoke she reminded people of the repression they lived under. They could not travel abroad. They suffered from a secret police that turned family members into spies.

Walking with Angela Merkel was Vera Lengsfeld. She had been a dissident and was held by the Stasi at their prison in Hohenschonhausen. Two days ago I went to see her. She described how, when arrested, the Stasi would drive you around for four hours so you had no idea where you were. You never saw the prison from the outside.

Inside the prison she was completely isolated. The only sound was the shutting of cell doors. We visited the prison which is largely untouched; a monument to a police state. There is a corridor with 40 interrogation rooms. The secret police wanted confessions and a finger pointed at others. Many lives were destroyed.

Vera Lengsfeld remembers the night of 9 November 1989. The sheer exhilaration of freedom. She also says with a smile that it changed Europe, lifted the Iron Curtain and ended the Cold War.

This time I am in Berlin to report on the anniversary of the fall of the Wall, and I've been revisiting the scene of some of the events I witnessed in 1989.

The following account is based on notes I made at the time:

On the evening of 9 November 1989, I was at the back of a hall in East Berlin when Guenther Schabowski, a party official, used these words: "If you want to go, you are free to leave."

It was difficult to know what he meant.

I returned to my hotel and mid-evening I heard loud voices. I picked out the word "Freiheit" - "Freedom" - shouted over and over again. On the street, people, couples, groups were tumbling out of apartment buildings. Many were young, their faces alive, daring to believe. We headed through the dimly-lit streets towards Checkpoint Charlie, one of the crossing points to West Berlin.

Suddenly, it seemed, we were no longer individuals but a crowd, drawn close by an unspoken hope. As we neared the checkpoint we slowed. From the West German side we could hear cheering, the sounds of a party, of celebration. In that moment, defined by a distant sound, some around me knew their world had changed and they embraced, their tears running on to the shoulders of friends.

Ahead of us were East German guards, edgy and uncertain, standing back in the shadows. Beyond them, on the other side of checkpoint Charlie was a bear, a dancing bear. Someone placed an East German border guard's cap on its head and the crowd laughed and drank from bottles.

Then a middle-aged couple walked past me towards the crossing and just kept walking. Two ordinary anonymous people. The crowd fell silent and watched this slow agonising walk into history. The guards did not stop them. They just checked out. On the West German side there was a roar and the couple were swallowed up in celebration. A man hugged me and we never exchanged a word.

As we waited, I noticed army trucks arriving and border guards began moving to our right and left. They were clearly visible, back-lit by an orange light. We all feared that shooting might start and we looked for cover, but the guards stood around as if waiting for orders. Then some young men jumped off the wall into East Berlin and walked towards the police lines where we were standing. They were smiling and offered their hands to the police, who stood there bewildered. And in those gestures of hesitation, of uncertainty, the authority of the German Democratic Republic, with its feared secret police, the Stasi, crumbled.

It is the curse of authoritarian regimes that at the moment they reform themselves and relax their grip they are at their most vulnerable. The crowd around us sensed it and was no longer afraid. A couple with a sparkler walked towards the wall, shrugging off police requests to stay back, but the request had been polite, pleading, and it only encouraged others to follow. They showed no hostility towards the police, they just humiliated them.

The police held their lines but the people streamed through. They were pulled up on to the wall and stood there looking down on two sides of a divided city. A man was passed a pickaxe and began chipping pieces off the wall. Surely now, I thought, force would be used, but it was already too late. The crowd had tasted freedom and without terrible bloodshed it could not be taken from them. We stayed there most of the night, filming a revolution, savouring the moments when every stranger was a friend and anything seemed possible.

After two nights of successfully guiding people through from east to west, the tunnel was discovered by the Stasi - the feared East German secret police - who raided the safe house which led to the entrance of the tunnel.

Armed with Kalashnikovs, guards chased the tunnellers back down into the hole, where they fled to the safety of West Germany.

One of Joachim Neumann's friends shot back at the guards, and for years believed the official GDR (East German) statement that his actions had killed a border guard. This led to them writing a letter of apology to the mother of the guard, who was made into a propaganda symbol by the GDR.

However in the 1990s, a journalist went through the declassified Stasi files and discovered that the guard had in fact been killed accidentally by a colleague. The tunnellers had never been guilty after all.

His words were scathing and undiplomatic in tone. He told The Guardian the Conservatives had "castrated" their influence in Europe. As regards the negotiating style of William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, he said: "They have one line and they just repeat the line. It is a very bizarre sense of autism". He denounced David Cameron's plans to bring back some powers from Brussels to Britain as "pathetic".

But by this afternoon the French minister had a different take on all this. "Pathetic" in French means "sad", he told the BBC. "I meant I was saddened, we are saddened in France to see the debate going in more and more euro-sceptical, euro-hostile tones".

He said he didn't realise that the word "autistic" was so offensive in English and withdrew the remark. Apparently the word is commonly used in France and translates very badly into English.

So in the end the message was lost in translation. Earlier another French minister had opined that it would be very difficult working with the Conservatives. On the evidence of the past 24 hours that is self-evidently true.

He does not want his agenda or his party to be engulfed by Europe in a way that proved so destructive in the past.

If he had insisted on a referendum - despite the fact that the Lisbon Treaty had become law - he would have embarked on a gigantic battle with other European leaders. David Cameron does not want that. He knows first-hand how it almost paralysed John Major's government.

So, for me, the key line was this:

"We will take our time, negotiate firmly, patiently and respectfully, and aim to achieve the return of the powers I have set out over the lifetime of a parliament."

And in case his meaning was not fully understood, the Tory leader said there would be no "Euro bust-up".

This, then, will be a long legal struggle. It is a far cry from threatening to obstruct business unless Britain gets its way.

Some in his party wanted a more general referendum to strengthen the party's hand in negotiating with other European countries. David Cameron has dismissed that. As Malcolm Rifkind, a former foreign secretary, observed earlier, it would only have the power of an opinion poll. It would also consume much of the government's energy.

David Cameron's aim is to negotiate an opt-out from social and employment legislation in certain areas and a complete opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is very difficult to bring powers back to Westminster without treaty changes. And that is a tough road to go down. To change a treaty needs the calling of an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC). That can only be done if 14 countries want it.

After the eight-year struggle to deliver the Lisbon Treaty it may not be easy to find 14 willing countries. Once a conference starts any country can put on the agenda whatever concerns it. To agree treaty changes requires the signatures of all 27 countries.

This has the feel of the "long grass". The EU knows how to string out negotiations and, as David Cameron said today, his aim would be to bring back some powers within the lifetime of a parliament. Even that may be ambitious.

The promise of "never again" allowing a transfer of powers to the EU without the say of the British people is politically shrewd. "Never again" is an attractive slogan to place in election leaflets. In reality there are no plans for another big treaty like Lisbon. The EU is worn down by the struggle to reform and there is no appetite for further major changes.

The offer of a referendum on this issue sets a benchmark. The Conservatives have opened themselves up to demands for referendums on other contentious issues.

Overall, other European countries will be reassured that David Cameron is not looking for a fight. What the Tories are hoping is that through legislation they will prevent a seepage of powers to Europe.

There was no fanfare, no announcement beforehand. The euro-sceptic Czech president just went ahead and signed a treaty he dislikes intensely. Some had hoped he would hold out longer but his options had gone. He had won a concession to opt out from the charter of fundamental rights but in exchange he had agreed to sign. The last legal hurdle was overcome this morning when the Czech constitutional court ruled the treaty did not violate the Czech constitution.

So ends an eight-year journey. The treaty started life as a constitution but it was rejected by the French and Dutch. It was re-born as a treaty although it was largely the same document. It had been shorn of some references that implied Europe was growing closer to being a federal state.

The British goverment, who promised the people a vote, changed its mind. The treaty was described as a technical change that did not require a referendum. All the indications were that the British people wanted their say and most likely would have rejected the treaty.

The Irish were the last to vote a few weeks ago. They had earlier voted 'no' but fears about the economy persuaded them to change their minds.

Events will now move fast. There will be an emergency summit possibly next week to chose a President of the European Council and a High Representative for foreign affairs.
With the treaty signed Tony Blair will have to decide whether he is a candidate for President and whether he'll lobby Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, the power brokers.
If he fails then speculation will re-surface that the current British foreign secretary David Miliband may get the foreign affairs post.

Britain's opposition Tories will now have to say whether they are committed to a referendum now the treaty has been signed. All the signs are that they'll back away from a vote but try and re-negotiate, to claim some powers back from Brussels
.

It only remains for the Czech President Vaclav Klaus to sign it. He does not like the Treaty but in recent days he has given every indication that he will put his pen to the document. Last week he told European leaders that he was satisfied with the opt-out he had won from the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The Czech President is travelling this week and the timing of the signing is uncertain but Europe expects the Treaty to be signed within days.

For Britain's opposition Tories this is their 'Europe' moment. They will have to clarify where they stand now that the Lisbon Treaty is set to become European law.

Until now they have given an 'ironclad' promise to hold a referendum on the Treaty if
any state had not ratified it. But the Tories have been delphic in their comments about what they would do if the Treaty had become law, taking cover behind the phrase 'they would not let matters rest.'

David Cameron has started laying the ground for a change of direction. Most probably he will abandon the idea of a referendum on the treaty. It would be difficult to poll the country on what by then would be European law. Instead the Tories may seek to reclaim some powers in areas like employment and social laws. That, they hope, would satisfy some euro-sceptics.

It will not satisfy all of them. Some want a referendum on the wider issue of Britain's involvement in the EU.

It is, however, a difficult calculation for the Tories. If they try and re-negotiate part of the Lisbon Treaty that would require the agreement of all 26 countries and any change would have to be attached to another treaty.

After eight years of discussion surrounding Lisbon and the constitution that preceded it, the Tories will encounter stiff resistance. Some may even regard such a move as a 'wrecking' manoeuvre.

Now it is always possible to be awkward in Europe, to strew obstacles around while demanding a re-negotiation. There are key discussions coming up on the budget where the British tax payer may be asked to pay more. But a full-scale row with the rest of Europe, as has been seen in the past, can be damaging, time-consuming and a distraction for a new government.

The greatest danger for David Cameron is that he re-ignites the arguments over Europe within his own party.