EU leaders are desperate to have a quiet, even dull, get-together in Brussels on Thursday.

Officials from various member states have been at pains to stress that this is the first meeting in quite some time “not taking place in an atmosphere of immediate crisis.” This should be quite a “normal” summit, said another diplomat, adding: “No need for the press to get excited.”

Of course, the press has been getting quite excited. First there were reports in Germany’s press and then the Spanish press that Madrid is looking to draw on the  recently-agreed 750 billion EU/IMF  euro rescue package.

The Spanish problem is the elephant in Brussels’ living room. Uninvited and talked about in whispers (but oddly without much urgency and almost a sense of complacency), it is safe to say that many are hoping it will quietly leave by the same door it sidled in.

So Spain and its massive bank debt problem is not officially on Thursday’s agenda. But may come up on the ‘sidelines’, as they say. The eurozone rescue mechanism itself may also come up, thanks to Slovakia which, at home at least, is playing hardball and saying it will not sign up to it. Nor, say voices in Bratislava, will the country pay its share of the €110bn rescue package for Greece.

This raises the more general question of what happens if more countries, such as Spain, call for financial help? How will the Germans – already angry about helping Greece – and the Slovaks (and perhaps others) react then?

On a slightly clearer note, part of the economic governance question appears to have been settled – to German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s liking.

Following their we’re-still-on-speaking-terms-meeting in Berlin on Monday, French president Nicolas Sarkozy seems to have backed down on demands to create some sort of permanent structure for the eurozone. Instead, the 16 euro leaders will meet informally every now and then.

Merkel won another concession, too. Berlin and Paris now seem to agree that voting rights should be removed from regular euro-rule breakers.

German officials believe that the threat of not having a vote gives a strong political incentive to behave. An EU leader going home and having to say they are no longer allowed to vote on issues would be too humiliating to contemplate, they argue.

But others look at the suggestion with a degree of scepticism. “I cannot see how you can do that without treaty change,” one EU diplomat remarked. This, needless to say, would not be welcome in Ireland or its larger island neighbour. On a purely practical level, it is also unclear what voting rights should be suspended and for how long.

The same diplomat concluded that although agreeing to impose financial sanctions for serial pact offenders would be “fraught with difficulty … some form of financial penalty is more likely” than the voting suspension option.

It is interesting to hear how Germans put across their plans for possibly amending the treaty. They say they are not pushing for it but merely want others to keep an open mind.

In any case, should it come to that weary point once more, it is just a question of selling the idea properly. Says one official:

“If we want to survive, we have to take this or that measure. Discipline governments. I think if you tell people ‘this is made to ensure your economic and social future; this is made to keep your own governments under control when it comes to spending,’ I think the majority of the population will say: ‘fine if we get what we need.’

“It’s a question of how you explain it. We should not just say, well, because we had the problem of the Netherlands, France, Ireland with the referenda, we don’t want to amend the treaty. We are talking about ways to stabillise our economic and financial position and I think all politicians should be able to explain to their people that it’s necessary.”

Alas theory and practice tend to be worlds apart.