But, "to make the most of this opportunity" one issue needed to be "clarified". The Italian government, we were told, "believes that eurozone member states are entitled to go ahead with greater integration, also as a way of regaining their growth potential and reconstituting the political credibility of Europe".

"This path", it said, "can be undertaken in a way that recognises that there is more than one currency in use in the EU at present - and for the foreseeable future - and has full regard to the rights and interests of non-euro member states, in particular safeguarding the integrity of the single market, which is a shared asset of the whole EU".

A stronger eurozone governance to ensure a successful euro in the long term, would be "in all our interests", but Italy and the UK believed that "the way to reconcile different visions of the EU among the member states" was to "embrace a new model of its functioning, based on the flexibility to manage greater or lesser integration". This was an approach, they said, that – de facto – had already been put in practice since the creation of the euro.

Looking at this in the round, this is a very clear joint statement approving the concept of a two-tier Europe, with a eurozone core and an outer ring, which may one day be transformed into the "British model".

Both Hammond and Gentiloni noted that the possibility of differing levels of EU integration had long been debated, and reminded us that, in its June 2014 meeting, the European Council agreed that: "the concept of ever closer union allows for different paths of integration for different countries, allowing those that want to deepen integration to move ahead, while respecting the wish of those who do not wish to deepen any further".

Those weasel words are never going to fly, but there is a recognition that, with more than 30 member states, countries will be able to "find a place and a suitable degree of integration within the EU, according to the will of their citizens".

With Germany and France agreeing in principle to a two-tier Europe, or a Kern Europa, the addition of Italy now makes half of the original Six accepting what amounts to a fundamental reform of the structure of the EU, and the largest three to boot.

That paves the way for a wider agreement which will doubtless form part of the substance of Friday's in-depth discussion on economic and monetary union. Is so doing, it will address two of Mr Cameron's core concerns, the protection of non-euro countries and the issue of "ever closer union".

Despite this, there is a long, hard battle before agreement will be reached on this, with a comment from Charles Grant cited, to the effect that the UK still faces "stiff opposition from the more federalist-minded countries and the European Commission", whose President, Jean-Claude Juncker, is a constant champion of "more Europe".

"Some EU countries", says Grant, "are wedded to the old thinking – that all must embrace the euro and ever closer union – and they won't welcome this initiative".

Juncker's opposition was said to be evident is a speech he gave to the European Parliament on Tuesday, when he told MEPs that he was addressing "the Parliament of the euro". Vote Leave Ltd interpreted that (wrongly, in my view) as a sign that Juncker was pouring "cold water on David Cameron's demand for the EU to be a 'multi-currency union'". But, Juncker actually went on to say that it being "the Parliament of the euro" was why he had wanted President Schulz to contribute to the Five Presidents' Report.

There we are full circle, as this is to be discussed on Friday, whence it is perfectly possible for the European Parliament to be the Parliament of the euro, with non-euro MEPs excluded from voting on EMU issues related solely to the eurozone.

As to where that leaves Mr Cameron on "welfare benefits", over which the media have been obsessing, is difficult to tell. The Independent thinks that the Prime Minister has a marginally better chance of securing a deal. There is, it says, support across the EU for the principle that national governments should control who has access to welfare, and changes could probably be introduced with a majority vote in favour.

Any such reform, though, would only be a symbolic step that would not save much money. It would not address the fears of working-class Britons that migrants to Britain are "taking their jobs".

On that basis, the paper argues that the Council meeting "has the look of a public relations exercise". When the EU referendum is held, it says, "it will be accompanied by a ferocious political argument during which, it can be safely predicted, whatever deal Mr Cameron manages to bring back from Brussels will barely feature at all".

On the other hand, the message we are getting from the Guardian is that Mr Cameron's existing proposal will remain the starting point for the talks. A No.10 spokesman has said: "The prime minister has made clear the proposal that is on the table as regards the welfare and migration element of the renegotiation is the four years and we will be discussing that tomorrow in Brussels in the EU council".

To this, the spokesman adds: " The prime minister will set out our proposals. If other EU leaders want to come forward with alternative proposals or suggestions, that will form part of that discussion. But let’s wait until that discussion starts to then see what comes out of it".

That, of course, does not stop the Telegraph running its usual "deep trouble" meme, while the Mail is prattling about a June referendum, "if PM can get concessions on curbing migration". But there won't be any concessions. There won't even be a decision - just discussions. 

As it stands, therefore, it looks as if the media may be walking away empty-handed, without even a biff-bam row to play with. But behind the scenes, progress will have been made, with the long game very much on the stocks. The referendum remains on track for late autumn 2017.