The Irish Prime Minister, Brian Cowen, is frightened he will fail by losing a second referendum. So he wants strong guarantees about what Lisbon does and does not mean to reassure Irish voters.

The other leaders are viscerally fearful about anything, anything at all, that will give people the slightest excuse to reopen the debate on Lisbon. Their fear of failure is heartfelt. They believe a new treaty is needed to run the European Union and they are fed up with the immense difficulty in getting it past the people.

Remember, first there was the European Constitution. That was killed off by voters in France and the Netherlands. Painfully, slowly, a new treaty, Lisbon, emerged: the Constitution stripped of some of its pretensions and fine words, but with most of the rule changes intact. Then the Irish people voted that down.

In their wisdom the Irish government decided this was down to various (in their view false) fears about what Lisbon would mean, for Irish neutrality, for abortion law, for workers rights. So they want guarantees setting out that Lisbon doesn't mean any of that.

Most observers think they will win the second referendum, more because of the economic crisis than these guarantees. Perhaps. I would just observe that the Irish government are very, very fixed on this one solution, and are meticulously hammering gold-plated, reinforced, tungsten-tipped nails into one particular stable door which they have identified as the exit route of that fine filly "Lisbon Treaty". If another stable door, perhaps marked "I don't like the EU's current direction" was the real route of "Lisbon Treaty's" disappearance they could be in very great trouble.

What the other leaders are worried about is that this whole kerfuffle will open the door for others to demand this, that and the other.

You see a protocol, making an agreement part of an EU treaty, is stronger than a mere agreement in international law, which is what today's form of words would amount to on their own.

The Irish prime minister put the cat among the pigeons by demanding this in a letter to the others, without apparently squaring them or doing any advanced diplomatic work. He wrote to "provide maximum possible legal reassurance to the Irish people... I need to be able to come out of our meeting and state, without fear of contradiction, that the legal guarantee... will, in time, acquire full treaty status by way of a protocol." This would have to be attached to a new treaty and new treaties need ratification, by parliament or a referendum.

So what gives pro-Lisbon leaders the heebie-jeebies is that there will be a campaign in Britain for a referendum on this, or someone will pop up and ask for their own reassurances, or the Czech or Polish president will find a new reason for not signing off Lisbon, or there'll be some other democratic diversions.

It slightly puzzles me why Gordon Brown is worried about this. The new bit would be tagged onto the next treaty allowing a new country to join the EU. That would probably be Croatia or Iceland. Perhaps Mr Brown is optimistic enough to believe that he will be prime minister when this happens. But it is more likely it will land on the plate of a Conservative government.

Those in Mr Cameron's party who hate Lisbon may see this as an ideal opportunity to deliver a retrospective blow to the hated treaty by demanding a referendum and voting down the assurances. It would be poetic, rather than practical, but symbols are important in politics.

But then the guts of this new treaty would be about a new country joining the EU. It has always been Conservative policy to encourage the expansion of the EU: could Mr Cameron happily encourage people to deal a blow to this longstanding approach?

But there's another consideration. Mr Cameron wants to wring new opt-outs, even a new relationship from the EU. The word is that the fruits of any such negotiation would be made law by attaching yet another protocol to this new treaty. So could the Conservatives end up holding a referendum on the EU and urging people to vote "Yes"?

Or would Mr Cameron be just as keen as current leaders to tiptoe around the whole awkward subject?

I've been musing on this after Gordon Brown's news conference, where the prime minister told me off for asking two questions. It's the curse of these things: there's the question the newsdesk want asked on the story of the day (MPs' expenses) and the one dull types like me want to ask, on the summit itself.

Mr Brown said that while cross-border supervision was needed when "our money" was involved in bailing out a bank the decision had to be taken by a national regulator, as the cash comes from a national government (and taxpayers of course).

Sounds like common sense. But what's the implication? If it is more than not trusting foreigners to make sensible decisions, doesn't it imply that he wants national regulators who can be guided, leant on, persuaded to the view of ministers?

And would what Mr Brown wants really make any difference? In his scenario the new EU institution makes a judgment that a bank is in serious trouble, but it is up to the national regulator to make a decision about what happens. But wouldn't any judgment by the EU, unless kept secret, force a chain of events anyway that would put pressure on the bank and force the government to step in?

With the headline "Heads of state agree historic climate-saving deal" it's Greenpeace's vision of what the paper might look like on 19 December, after a successful end to the climate change summit.

It's imaginative, with other headlines on Sarkozy renouncing nuclear power and the Earth's atmosphere being declared a world heritage site. It's witty: "Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was rushed to hospital late today and treated for confetti inhalation and minor hug-related injuries".

But was it really necessary for this environmental organisation to send me 44 copies?
Given I was handed one as I left the metro this morning I now have 45.

The government worries that the City of London, with its 600 banks, 420 of them European, and its flow of 250bn euros a year, could be hit hard by new tighter rules on financial institutions. The debate about this will be the centrepiece of Thursday's meeting of the EU's 27 prime ministers and presidents.

Of course, after the financial crisis there is a clamour for stricter rules and it has been taken up with enthusiasm by France, Germany and the European Commission. The plan on the table is for a new three-headed EU watchdog to control banks, insurance and securities.

The problem, as so often in politics, is "who picks up the tab?" Although no other big government seems seriously worried (Slovenia, Slovakia and Romania are our partners in opposing the plan) the British say that because of the size of the City, we will be affected disproportionately. Ministers say they worry that the EU institution will be able to tell them to pump money into a failing bank: power without responsibility.

The cry of the UK government is not "no taxation without representation" but "no liability without responsibility". It's not quite as catchy, and Gordon Brown won't be rigged out in feathered headgear throwing Earl Grey out of the window of the Council building into the Rue de la Loi outside. But as one source put it, "we're not going to have the Commission take the decision and find the bill lands on our table".

What I can't quite figure out at the moment is whether the objection is a winnable battle, to act as a smokescreen for going along with a lot of other stuff that people in the City won't like (hedge funds won't even be discussed at this summit), or if a British victory would be real, and so completely emasculate the Commission plan.

But this goes to the heart of several debates about the purpose of the European Union. It is pretty clear that financial institutions are multinational and have outstripped the national institutions set up to police them. Some governments want to create multinational institutions to match, others worry about handing over that much of their power. And could the mantra "no liability without responsibility" apply to other areas of EU policy?

This is not the only subject on the agenda: more later on Ireland and the Lisbon Treaty and Commission president Barroso's future.

Update 11:59 18 June: It's "Be Nice To Gordon Day" in Brussels.

Although the leaders of other big EU countries want banks regulated at a European Union level, they are not up for a bruising fight with Mr Brown. Especially not one that humiliates him.

The word around town is that the French are worried that Mr Brown is so weak that to undermine him further could bring a snap general election that much nearer. That would bring a Conservative government that much nearer. Which would bring a British referendum that much nearer. Which would probably kill off the Lisbon Treaty. As one official put it to me, "we can do business with Cameron, but we want to get Lisbon through first".

The same concerns lie behind another big subject at the summit: the guarantees given to the Irish ahead of a second referendum on Lisbon.

The Irish want them copper-bottomed, water-tight and any other secure industrial metaphor you can think of. The best way of doing this is by making them a protocol. But that needs ratification, and would that re-open the argument about referendums in other countries, not least in Britain.

Would Mr Cameron promise a referendum on ratifying such clarifications?

The leader of the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV), Geert Wilders, denies he is a racist, saying his problem is with Islam as an ideology, not the colour of people's skin. The leader of the BNP and new MEP, Nick Griffin, says his all-white party is no more racist that the National Black Police Association. Hungary's Jobbik says the real racists are the liberal establishment who do not put Hungarians first. They have attacked the Sunday Telegraph for its report on their party. It is time someone put this hotbed of liberal do-gooders in their place.

The rise of the right is patchy, and looking at where those patches are absent is important. As far as I can see from the results in front of me, anti-immigration parties in Italy and France did not do well. In the run-up to the election, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi repeatedly compared Italian cities to "Africa", whether because of graffiti or "non-Italian" faces. In the final days, French President Nicolas Sarkozy's stepped up his plan to crack down on knife crime and flood Paris's suburban ghettos with police. He didn't mention immigration. He didn't have to do so.

Long before I came to Brussels, certain Labour MPs were telling me how worried they were about the BNP. These were the same people who, as ministers, came up with the toughest rhetoric on the perils of too much immigration and too little integration.

The hard right may try to form a new group in the European Parliament - until all the results are in it is not easy to say if they will do so. I somehow doubt it. But even if they did, they would have little influence on legislation or even debate. Their real importance is that their election gives politicians from bigger parties a huge scare, and pushes the mainstream towards are tougher line.

The UK Independence Party (UKIP) have done well, although not as well as my excited reporting of rumours last night suggested. But it's a tribute to Nigel Farage's leadership that the party has increased its number of seats - yet a couple of years ago it could have fallen apart. His opponents blame us in the media for giving him air time: however he's a very effective spokesman for a strong strand of public opinion.

It's an important result. As a whole it confirms the mood of the British electorate towards the EU. It is also significant in terms of its impact on the Conservatives. It is pretty clear if you compare the local elections with the Euros that the Conservatives lost votes to UKIP. They want those votes back in time for a general election. So if there was ever any argument for them soft-pedalling their hard line on the EU it's gone. Those who've argued for a range of policies, pulling out of the centre-right group, arguing for a referendum, for a new relationship with the EU, will have their hand strengthened.

The Conservatives are now going through the list of those elected to find potential partners for their new group alongside the Czechs and Poles. So will I, later in the day, but I have no real doubt they will get enough support to form one.

A significant Eurosceptic group on the mainstream right will stir things up in the European Parliament. They will be backed up in mischief and serious opposition by UKIP and other Eurosceptic groups who've joined the parliament. Then there's the harder right-wing parties who've been elected, and generally have little love for the EU.

The saddest moment of the night: Labour MEP Richard Corbett lost his seat. Irrespective of party politics there are some people who are good for politics as a whole. Mr Corbett, a decent, thoughtful politician, is also one of the few people who actually understand how the European Parliament works and explained it well. He'll be missed on all sides of the chamber.

At a time of severe economic crisis, when it's almost traditional for people to give their governments a kicking, they refrained. In Poland, Germany, France and Italy ruling parties of the centre right have done well. In part this may be because many in continental Europe see this recession as made in the USA, and UK, by Anglo-Saxons - not their own leaders.

But the other side of the coin is the EU-wide failure of social democracy. They lost some votes to parties further to their left. In France and Germany in particular the main party of the left has been in a mess for a while. And in Germany, where the party is in a coalition government, it hasn't looked like anything but the junior partner.

An economic crisis, which many blame on a market that's too free, in a world where people feel insecure, and might look for more social protection - it should have been an open goal for the social democrats. In Europe they have lacked inspiration, organisation and anything approaching a new idea.

Another politician who should be grinning is Italy's PM Silvio Berlusconi, whose new right-wing People of Freedom (PdL) party appears to have won almost 57% of the vote. A dramatic result for a party in government.

We've also heard that the hard right has made a gain in the East, where the Greater Romania Party has taken two seats. They are seen as an ultra-nationalist party, with anti-Hungarian and anti-Semitic policies.

Some will argue, perhaps tongue-in-cheek, that this means people are happy and content with their lot and the job of the parliament: I have heard that argument once already!

Perhaps more significant in the long run is that it seems the centre-right will have a very good night and the socialists will do badly: UMP has 28% in France, CDU 30% in Germany. The pro-market Free Democrats doing well. Quite extraordinary at a time of economic crisis, when you would think that the socialists, arguing that it's the fault of the free market and workers need more protection, would appeal. But it seems they will lose seats.

The European Parliament is already buzzing with activity. All along the main walkway - or passerelle, as we call it here - the main party groupings have quite literally set out their stalls. TV stations have set up mini studios, some rather grand and gleaming, others little more than a stool and camera.

It's obvious that in Britain the big question is the impact of the result on Brown. But each country will have its own story to tell. What to look out for?

As always, turnout will be the first story, simply because we know about it before any firm results.

What are the results of the centre-right parties of government in the biggest countries - France, Germany, Poland and Italy?

Will the socialists make gains? And if they don't in mid-economic crisis what does that say about them?

Will the smaller parties of the hard left and right make gains?

Hopefully some answers as the evening progresses.

What I hadn't realised is that there was a moratorium for that day on any audience contribution at all, in case people used it to discuss British politics. But we can put it up now. Of course, if you are going to the polls in continental Europe today you should avert your eyes and try not to let the deeds of Scipio Aemilianus influence your vote. More relevant blogging on Sunday evening as the results come in.

MALTA

Here in Malta the European elections, amazingly, are about the European Union and its policies. As the UK votes today (Thursday) I can't say much more.

But all over this overcrowded island there's evidence of its rich history - which is a polite way of saying wave upon wave of conquerors. Not that long ago I heard a brilliant episode of my favourite programme - Melvyn Bragg's In Our Time, on the sack of Carthage. Evidence is scant, and I don't want to put my BBC impartiality aside too much, but I have a feeling I know who I would be cheering for in the Punic Wars. Are you for Rome or Carthage?

Over white wine and the rather lovely local fizzy drink made of bitter oranges, the conversation between five women is growing heated.
"These people don't want to be here. Send them on their way!"
"Where? Nobody wants them!"
"Why bring them in here? They are costing us lots of money."
"Because they are in danger. They are dying."
"It's not my problem."
"Someone once said to me 'Don't let them touch land, give them water and push them out'. I said 'Would you have the guts to do it?' I would, I would give them food, make sure they have no illness and send them off."

I had been trying to get a discussion going between a group of women, old school friends meeting for their monthly reunion, but was now quite surplus to requirements as they went at it hammer and tongs. Malta is consumed by the debate over immigration and the role of the European Union.

It is the one country I have been to in the last few weeks where the EU and its policies are central to the European elections. The deregulation of buses and the state of the road are issues. The ban on shooting migrating birds looms large. But it is the fate of human migrants that dominates all else.

It's true that migration has driven much of human history but it is difficult to credit that Europe seems such a Shangri-La that thousands of people travel for thousands of miles and risk death and appalling hardship to reach our shores. But they do, and when they get into trouble on the high seas the EU's smallest country is in charge of coordinating rescues across 250,000 sq km of sea.

The line is thin indeed: 236 men and women with nine boats between them make up the Maltese Maritime Division. They have help from the EU's frontier patrol agency, Frontex, aircraft from Luxembourg and boats from Germany. EU money will buy them new boats. They're needed.

"If you've seen Apocalypse Now those are the boats going up and down the Mekong Delta." One of the officers from the Maltese equivalent of the navy points out one of their Vietnam-era craft in their main base in Valletta.

Chopping through the deep blue seas in baking sunshine, the boat we go to sea on was made by East Germany, when there was such a country. Their vessels may not be the most modern, but their mission is both very contemporary and very complex.

Not a job for those who love the smell of burning napalm in the morning, it is a combination of gentle police action and search-and-rescue, as politicians seek to satisfy the conflicting demands of voters who expect humanity, but are wary of illegal immigration.

Malta is not only the smallest of the EU countries, it is also the most southern lying south of both Tunis and Tangiers. Size and geography combine to make illegal immigration such an acute problem.

Draw a line between Tripoli and Sicily and you hit Malta. People from all over East and West Africa, either fleeing political strife or simply looking for a better life, make their way at great hardship across the desert and on to Libya. From there, they hope to get to Europe, which now has very few internal borders.

They pay often untrustworthy middle men ("people smugglers" if you must) for the passage in often hopelessly inadequate boats. Many end up having to be rescued, and taken to a detention centre in Malta.

The island joined the EU in 2004 and there's some dispute if this made it a desirable target. The government line is that most are heading for Italy, and then for the rest of the EU and they simply wash up in Maltese waters by accident.

The figures are ambiguous. In 2002 there were 1,500 people detained. The year Malta joined the EU only 500. But it's been rising since. Last year there were 2,800. This year a record number until April. Since then, nothing.

The boat's skipper scans the horizon through powerful binoculars. He doesn't expect to see any refugee boats looming into sight.

The man with the seemingly unenviable task of coordinating Malta's search and rescue operation seems to relish it, and Major Andrew Mallia spells out, with impressive clarity, the priorities.

He tells me that if a ship is spotted they will rescue the people on board if they are in trouble, but otherwise must simply warn them against illegal immigration, if they are outside Malta's territorial waters.

But once inside it is imperative to stop them landing. If they did they could simply disappear or, as one man did, drown in the last five metres to shore. Still force must not be used against them. This isn't just an injunction against armed force: persuasion, not compulsion, has to be used. The would-be immigrants must be persuaded to come on board. This is done with great care, so their boat is not capsized, and people are taken on board by dinghy, only five or six at a time, so they can be searched for weapons and any troublemakers isolated.

We take to the air, in one of the helicopters that coordinate rescues. Again, beautiful views of the island and coast, but not a boat of migrants in sight. It's thought Libya has acted to destroy the yards where the special boats are made and that they have fired on ships that are leaving, perhaps enthusiastic to get big EU money for dealing with the problem.

But many Maltese feel the EU's large countries are not doing their share. The Maltese want "burden-sharing", which means other EU countries taking some of the migrants, who are currently packed into one of the most crowded countries on Earth. Other EU countries don't want them, and don't want to encourage would-be migrants. "Go to Malta and get locked up" is one thing. "Go to Malta and get free passage to Germany, the UK or France" is quite another.

I am here for a film I am doing for Sunday's election night programme, which is meant to illustrate how different outcomes in the election might influence different policies. It is a worthwhile commission, but the conclusion will not be as straightforward a guide as the editor might have hoped.

Yes, any future immigration package will be amended and passed or rejected by MEPs. Both main parties here want "burden-sharing," but Labour say they thought of it first, and that the ruling Nationalists were tardy.

It is fair to say if the socialists are in the ascendant then the package will much more liberal than if the centre-right hold sway. But in Malta in many ways the Labour Party, members of the European Socialist group, have a harder, more confrontational line than the ruling Nationalist Party, which is part of the centre-right.

It's hardly surprising that the women arguing so passionately can't tell me how the European Parliament is relevant to their debate. "You vote red or blue. That's the way it is," one says with finality.

I've just been sent an interesting little booklet called The Fight for Democracy: a series of interviews with Declan Ganley, the founder of Libertas, which is standing as a pan-European party in 14 of the 27 EU countries.

What interests me about Mr Ganley is that he does have some genuine ideas for making the EU more democratic. Most of those who say they are campaigning for reform have long ago come to the conclusion that the EU is not transformable. Therefore, they argue, less should be done at a European level and powers should be returned to national parliaments.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, and Mr Ganley stresses it is one option for those who want a more democratic EU. But he also suggests that the European Parliament could elect the whole commission, or that the nation states should hold elections for the job of commissioner.

At the moment commissioners are simply appointed by the head of government of each country. Of course, no president or prime minister would wear this reduction in their power of patronage, let alone risk a political opponent ending up as their man or woman in Brussels. But it's an intriguing idea.

And just a plug for imaginative coverage of this election: find out how they will vote down Brussels Way.

That's Brussels Way in Luton... But who would they elect as a commissioner?