MEPs close to the negotiations told EurActiv that after a tense debate with the European Council and the European Commission, the Council began trying to hash out a compromise in the small hours of 10 February to satisfy MEPs' concerns on bulk data transfers and legal redress.
On Wednesday, the Council also issued a statement saying it would try to meet MEPs' concerns ahead of today's plenary vote.
Likely delay of vote
A new Council line would postpone the vote indefinitely. Today's vote "is likely to be a vote on a deferral of the vote," according to one MEP.
If the vote goes ahead and MEPs vote 'no', the interim SWIFT agreement between the EU and the US would be in limbo, the only silver lining being that bulk transfers of data would no longer be possible, say MEPs.
A large majority of MEPs have already made clear they will be voting 'no' if there is a vote on SWIFT today.
It's common knowledge, say MEPs, that all political groups except the conservative European People's Party (EPP) are firmly opposed to the agreement that would see the EU "flout its own laws on fundamental rights," according to the Parliament's rapporteur for the agreement, Jeanine Hennis-Plaesschaert from the Alliance of Liberal Democrats for Europe (ALDE).
Plasschaert said she was disappointed that the EU "continues to outsource its security services to the United States without any reciprocity".
During yesterday's debate it emerged that MEPs are opposed to many aspects of the interim agreement including the USA's ability to request large swathes of data from the SWIFT database and that such data, under US law, can be held for up to ninety years.
In addition, under the agreement, EU citizens would not have a legal right to redress on US soil, according to Plaesschaert.
The European Parliament has previously been unable to put such pressure on the Council but the Lisbon Treaty, which came into force last December, affords MEPs more say on international agreements.
However, the Council maintains that a 'no' vote would create a worrying security gap and that would-be terrorists would have a window to go undetected by authorities.
"In the absence of such short-term agreement, an important security gap would arise in which there would be a risk of losing the benefit of important leads obtained through the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme," read a statement from the Council on Wednesday.
MEPs warned the Council not to try and score points by scaremongering.
A large majority say there is no security gap given the existence of a Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement between the EU and the US.