Grumbling is part of the run-up to any gathering of EU leaders. There seems to be more it about than usual though –  possibly a sign that this summit may really produce (some of) the goods.

Here is a list of some of the grumbles / issues.

Tightening economic governance in the eurozone -  there are several options.

Full-blown EU treaty change – with all the Pandora-box-drama that this potentially entails

The 17 euro countries forge ahead with their own pact, and the European institutions – according to the Franco-German letter sent Wednesday – play “an important role”. This new accord should be “integrated into EU law as soon as possible”. This is legally and politically difficult. Would need the agreement of all 27 member states.

The protocol 12 option – European Council President Herman Van Rompuy pulled this legal trick out of a hat on Tuesday. This would see Article 126, para 14 – previously unknown to most of Brussels – put into action. This allows protocol 12 – outlining excessive deficit steps – to be changed simply by agreement among EU leaders. Much, though not all (extended ECJ power), of economic governance rule-tightening could be shoved into Protocol 12. However, the final outcome would likely still have to be approved by the UK parliament.

The treaty change question has opened a whole subset of complaining.

The Germans still want to press ahead with full treaty change and have dismissed Van Rompuy’s protocol option as “trickery.” From Van Rompuy’s side there is exasperation that Berlin is not prepared to accept this solution when there is so much reluctance among other member states to change the treaty. But Van Rompuy’s team is quietly confident that their solution will prevail because it is the least complicated and the most legally sound (this last is a reference to the 17 plus EU institutions idea). German officials complain that others are not understanding the seriousness of the crisis and the need to take quick decisions – something bound to cause some spluttering as this is what Germany has been accused of from the very beginning.

The Franco-German letter, outlining what the economic governance future should hold, is also raising hackles.

The Finns say they cannot accept the proposal to introduce “super majority” decision-making when it comes to the permanent bailout fund (ESM). Finance minister Jutta Urpilainen called it an “alarming arrangement.” They are also against ruling out private sector involvement in future bailouts under the ESM. (In a major climbdown, Germany has agreed that language in the ESM treaty requiring insolvent countries to negotiate bondholder losses has been removed.)

Meanwhile proposals by Van Rompuy that the ESM be given a banking certificate have long been opposed by Berlin. Finland and the Netherlands are also unlikely to support this.

Ireland, which views EU treaty change through referendum-tinted specs,  is heading to the negotiation table wanting to make the terms of its EU-IMF bailout deal more flexible. It was thoroughly irritated at bilateral summit in Berlin last month when its demands to this end fell on deaf ears. It is now also alarmed by Paris and Berlin’s push for a common corporate tax base, something Dublin views as tax harmonisation, via the “back door”. (Incidentally, Enda Kenny, the Irish PM, is heading to the summit with 12 advisers, the Irish Times tells us).

Eurobonds are another bone of contention. Germany is refusing to consider the idea for now. But the European Commission and  Van Rompuy have kept it on the table. (This forms part of the solidarity/discipline debate. Those complaining about Germany’s solutions to the crisis say Berlin is only focussed on budgetary discipline. A fiscal union cannot exist without some form of  solidarity).

Financial transaction tax – France and Germany are eager to push ahead with this – mentioning it again in Wednesday’s letter. Fiercely opposed by the UK (with the biggest financial services sector in Europe), it is not much liked by the Netherlands either. Berlin and Paris also want to push head with pan-European regulation of finance. Again Britain is not a fan.

Role of the UK – This would need a whole separate blog to itself. Suffice to say that Prime Minister David Cameron, hemmed in by a fiercely eurosceptic Tory party, is heading to Brussels with fists raised and amid a flurry hardball statements on what he will and will not allow other member states to do.  Other countries, which normally allow for Cameron having to play to the domestic gallery, are increasingly exasperated by the tone.  However, the three options outline above would need to be oked by the UK in some way. Of most concern to the UK is it financial services sector. It is worried that if the 17 eurozone countries go off for a permanent huddle, they will opt for more protectionist measures that affect the internal market.

London is already extremely concerned about Sarkozy’s idea to have monthly meetings of eurozone leaders – not so much for the meeting themselves but for the fact that they are supposed to discuss competitivity and growth,  issues that ought to be discussed by all 27 member states, it says.

So where does that leave us? Possibly forgetting that, amid all this treaty talk, solutions are needed now, such as on boosting the current bailout fund (which has failed to attract investors in anything like the order of magnitude that is needed.)

Alarmingly the Germans have said they have no plans for the weekend. Other diplomats – possibly those with plans for the weekend – have suggested they think a deal will be place by Friday evening.

It’s anyone’s guess what the outcome will be. But the meeting could see agreement on all changes that would not trigger a referendum in Ireland and other countries (see this very helpful article), with a promise to carry out more profound treaty change further down the line.