Was a deal done between the French and the Germans, a gentleman's agreement that Bonn would support a French nominee for head of the European Central Bank (ECB) in exchange for approving Frankfurt as the bank's location? If there was a deal it was never on paper and never acknowledged by Bonn. Diplomats and officials here all shake their heads and say the same thing: "I've heard the rumour but just don't know." Even the French talk of it only as "implicit".
The truth is that the Germans have been signalling for some time their enthusiasm for the post going to the head of the European Monetary Institute (EMI) and former Dutch Central Bank boss, Mr Wim Duisenberg. These days, the fiscally conservative Dutch see themselves as more German than the Germans on monetary matters, a view that would probably be echoed in the Bundesbank.
The nomination of French Central Bank governor Mr Jean-Claude Trichet was not going to make matters easy, Bonn's Finance Minister, Mr Theo Waigel, said on Wednesday.
But this is not just a row about who gets a plum job. Underlying and implicit in the argument is a tussle only just beginning between central bankers and governments over the control of monetary policy once the euro is launched - albeit a tussle severely circumscribed by the Maastricht Treaty.
The French were not the only ones miffed when Mr Duisenberg's nomination by fellow central bankers to head the EMI was leaked last year ahead of the actual decision by EU leaders. The appointment of the successor to Mr Francois Lamfalussy as head of the ECB's precursor was supposed to be in the gift of heads of government on the recommendation of the governors, acting as the board of the EMI. By leaking their decision, however, they left leaders with little choice other than to ratify Mr Duisenberg or be seen to undermine the independence of the institute.
The French insist that their nomination is not so much about putting a Frenchman in the job but about resisting what might be called the irresistible rise of the technocrat bankers. This is, they say, a political job.
It is an argument that echoes French concerns all the way through the euro debate. Paris is only a recent convert to the idea of central banks' independence and has consistently sought structures - as formal as possible - that would allow ministers of those countries within EMU control of the broad direction of monetary policy.
What they have got is agreement on the establishment of an informal gathering without powers of finance ministers of those member-states operating alongside Ecofin meetings.
Not that Mr Trichet would necessarily be any more susceptible to political pressure than Mr Duisenberg, but his nomination is France's last gambit. His appointment would signal to markets and to the bank itself that France had not altogether lost the argument.
Its Finance Minister, Mr Dominique Strauss-Kahn, said here on Wednesday, however, that the argument was being overplayed. Neither the fate of the euro nor the direction of the ECB ultimately rested on the name of its director.
That view was being echoed by senior officials in Dublin. They pointed to the independence enshrined in the statutes of the ECB, and argued that the bank would have to prove itself by its actions from day one, under whatever director.
Under no circumstances would they venture a view on the relative merits of the two current candidates and it is clear that discussions in Kildare Street have not yet even begun to address the possibility of an Irish candidate. Two scenarios to explain the French action are being touted in the corridors of a surprised Brussels: the benign and the malign. In the former scenario, we are simply seeing a classic case of the French upping the ante on one job in order to claim another. France's real target, it is argued, is either the vice-presidency of the ECB, or even the head of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) whose president, Mr Jacques de Larosiere, retires at the end of January.
One version of this scenario is that proposed by the German financial daily, Handelsblatt - Mr Jacques Chirac is out to broker a deal in which Mr Duisenberg gets the job and retires in two years to hand over to Mr Trichet.
The trouble is that, even at this stage, too many member-states dislike the image being projected of key EU decisions being a ready-up between the French and Germans and may be reluctant to co-operate.
Many believe the malign scenario, in which Mr Chirac is not bluffing and genuinely will go as far as vetoing Mr Duisenberg. This, the Dutch say wearily, is a repeat of the British veto of Mr Ruud Lubbers which propelled Mr Jacques Santer into the presidency of the Commission.
If Mr Chirac does veto - or at least can convince member-states that he will - the Dutch will almost certainly block Mr Trichet in return, and we will be in the market for another candidate. Some say we are already. Yesterday, they were beginning tentatively to emerge. Spain's respected Central Bank head, Mr Luis Angel Rojo, may be nominated and Italy indicated it would support the candidacy of the head of the Bundesbank, Dr Hans Tietmeyer. Austrian sources have suggested their former Chancellor and central banker, Mr Franz Vranitsky.
Each, however, has his drawbacks. Mr Rojo, however admirable and likely to be backed by the Portuguese, is a southerner whose nomination would do little to assuage German or Dutch public opinion about the credibility of the euro. They have only just got used to the idea that Spain will be in the first group.
Dr Tietmeyer has the credentials but many countries would be wary of confirming the popular prejudice that the ECB is the successor to and a clone of the Bundesbank, simply a German project.
While Mr Vranitsky is widely liked and admired by fellow socialists, Austria's closeness to the Germans would make the nomination unlikely to succeed. It is also some time since he was involved in matters financial.
What of other potential candidates? The Financial Times's favourite seems to be Belgium's Finance Minister, Mr Philippe Maystadt, but he has been named in a number of his country's ongoing financial scandals and is unlikely to survive too close a scrutiny. Remember Mr Willy Claes. Luxembourg would scarcely be allowed to pull the Santer trick twice and Finland has a possible woman candidate although few believe she could be a contender in this man's world. Not this time round anyway.
Britain, Sweden, Greece, and Denmark will not have the right to nominate a candidate as they will not be participating in the launch of the euro.
Which leaves Ireland. And the widely respected Mr Maurice O'Connell, fresh from the acclaimed Irish presidency, basking in the success of the Celtic tiger economy and robustly, almost Germanically orthodox. Why not?
