EU Foreign Ministers yesterday remained deadlocked over how to launch the EU's enlargement process to central and eastern Europe next year, the key decision of next month's Luxembourg summit.
Complicated by the wish of a majority of member states to signal to Turkey that it is considered a long-term prospect for membership, the decision on the accession procedure is impaled on the promise that all applicants will be treated the same.
Some interpret this to mean that all applicants must be allowed to start talks at the same time, others merely that the bar must not be raised later.
Yesterday two of the key protagonists, Germany and Denmark, tested the water informally with proposals to break the deadlock, but few were biting.
There are two basic approaches to the problem, with a variety of intermediate stages.
On the one hand, backed by the Danes, Swedes, Greeks, and Germans, there is the "regatta": a grand launch to the accession process involving all 11 countries in opening talks and then the gradual fast-tracking of those most prepared, with the opportunity for others to catch up at any stage if their preparations warrant it.
This has the virtue of being inclusive and reassuring to those who will not make the first wave of accession. It would also make substantially redundant - hence the appeal of this approach to the Greeks - the idea of a European Conference, a means by which France has suggested bringing together all applicant countries with Turkey in a formal setting.
On the other there is the Commission's favoured option, backed by a majority of member states, the so-called "5+1" approach: accession negotiations would only begin with those that the Commission has assessed as capable of meeting the requirements of membership in the next few years, the five - Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, and Estonia - and the one - Cyprus.
The rest - Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Latvia - would be assessed yearly to see if they were yet fit enough to be part of the "ins".
The Commission argues that even if all 11 applicants were ready for accession talks, the burden of setting up 11 separate teams of negotiators, involving not only its over-stretched staff but teams from each country in each of the negotiations, would simply be unmanageable.
The Danes and Swedes are particularly opposed to "5+1" because it discriminates between the Baltic states, ostensibly leaving Lithuania and Latvia out in the cold for an indeterminate time.
And its proponents have alienated the Greeks by proposing the European Conference as a reassurance to the "outs" and as a means for bringing Turkey into the fold.
Yesterday the Danes and Germans offered new alternatives on both themes. The Danes argued that since the first stage of accession discussion was in effect a seven- to nine-month screening dialogue involving only the Commission, this could be allowed to go ahead with all 11, with differentiation only being made at the end of 1998.
During the screening applicants discuss in detail all that will have to be done to bring their countries into line with EU law and administrative practice. Only after this do formal negotiations begin.
Initial reaction to the proposal was lukewarm as the Danes see a legal guarantee to accession countries as an important part of the process, while others say such guarantees are impossible in a process that for some countries could be very long.
And the Germans proposed the creation of a third level of dialogue - "5+1", then an enlargement committee of 11, and a European Conference of 11 plus Turkey and possibly Norway and Switzerland. The proposal is likely to please only the Greeks who want to avoid any institutional assurance to Turkey of its future accession.
Ireland, represented yesterday by the Minister of State for Development, Ms Liz O'Donnell, supports "5+1".
Ministers also continued the discussion of Agenda 2000 with each of the member states putting down markers on the framework for negotiations next year. Ms O'Donnell reiterated Ireland's demand that it should get a "soft landing" on structural funds.
