For an organisation which often credits itself as being the unique reason for peace in this continent over the past 50 years, the European Union is proving a source of intense conflict. The document issued by Angela Merkel on behalf of the German presidency yesterday made clear by its omissions how many areas of disagreement remain before the summit in Brussels next week. Meanwhile, Nicolas Sarkozy travelled to Warsaw to urge the Prime Minister and President of Poland not to demonstrate “total intransigence” in their determination to keep its EU voting share undiminished. At home, Gordon Brown is no doubt concerned that Tony Blair will bequeath him a “settlement” that would make it hard for him to resist calls for an unwinnable referendum.

There are many more hands to be played in this particular game of political poker. Certain principles, however, should be absolute.

The first is that Poland is entirely entitled to defend its national interests with vigour and wield the veto if that is required. Its current share of EU votes is disproportionately large (almost as much as Germany’s with half the population) but it is the share that it was awarded when it was admitted to the EU. Warsaw will have to settle for less eventually (as its leadership knows) but it should not be bullied into that decision.

The present manic drive for a treaty (do not dare use the C-word, constitution) is essentially a vast act of vanity by the German Government.

Mrs Merkel argued yesterday that while failure to secure an accord on her preferred terms and timetable would not mean “the demise of Europe”, it would have “indescribable and grave consequences for Europe”. This is absolute hyperbole. It is also astonishingly arrogant. If no mini-treaty was signed this year, all that would occur is that further discussions would be held next year – this deadline is entirely artificial. Other countries that hold the presidency would explore whether an intelligent consensus which includes and not excludes the citizens of EU member states might be found. The Union has had too much experience of late-night deals accepted by exhausted politicians whose flaws become clear in the cold light of day. Those mistakes must not be repeated by the British Prime Minister.

Mr Blair, and more relevantly, Mr Brown must be prepared not only to have sympathy for the Poles but to resist the temptation to exploit their “intransigence” to avoid being as blunt as well. Mrs Merkel’s notion of a “mini-treaty” in one in which the essence of the old constitutional draft is maintained but the word “constitution” is omitted alongside other modest changes on matters of symbolism such as no longer incorporating the choice of Beethoven’s Ode to Joy as the EU’s anthem into formal legislation. Moves such as these are being offered as reasons why the voters of Britain and France should not be consulted on their own futures. Some who represent Germany abroad might object to “messy public debates” concerning Europe. An occupant of 10 Downing Street cannot take that attitude to his electorate.

Mr Brown knows what the crucial questions are. They include social security, immigration, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the need to rein in the European Court of Justice, which is constantly and ruthlessly expanding the domain of EU law (and thus its own authority). There is no need for Mr Brown to concede on these fundamental questions of national domain or to be conned by Berlin into completing a quick deal with truly profound long-term consequences.