The French are at it again, showing two Gallic fingers to the European principle of free movement of goods and people.
Within days of the lifting of the blockade of ports by fishermen, lorry drivers have closed down oil-supply depots and refineries in their turn to protest at spiralling fuel costs. Farmers have joined them and taxi-drivers will do so on Thursday. By early afternoon yesterday, protesters had sealed off around 60 of the country's 70 depots and refineries, manoeuvring lorries and farm vehicles to prevent fuel-tankers entering or leaving.
The effects will not be immediate - despite some panic buying, there should still be stocks in garages to last a few days, before the country grinds to a halt.
But for those Irish hauliers facing the bleak prospect of massive delays or heavy costs because of rerouting for the third time this year, the galling question once again is: "what is the point of our EU membership and its precious four freedoms? What is Brussels doing for us?"
The Commission does have some legal powers but member-states, jealous of their national prerogatives, have made sure they are severely circumscribed.
If anyone is going to interfere in the right to strike it must be the national government, not the EU, or so the logic goes. In 1997 a successful court action against the French over the blockading of Spanish strawberries by fruit growers established an important principle of EU law. Not only must governments not block the free movement of goods themselves, but they are responsible for taking measures to ensure that others do not do so in their territory.
The principle was then enshrined in a procedure by which the Commission, when it gets wind of any such blockage, can ask a member-state urgently to communicate the precise scope of the problem, what it intends to do to put a stop to it, and possible alternative routes for travellers.
The Commission did so last week over the ports and the French responded to say that the blockade was over. A spokesman for the Commission yesterday morning said it was watching the lorry drivers' action closely but it had not yet become a threat to trade.
If not satisfied with the response of a member-state, the Commission can then initiate proceedings in the European Court of Justice, a process which may take several years. Cold comfort to drivers stuck in a 10-mile tailback, but an eventual finding by the court against a member-state can be the basis of a damages action against the state by those affected. That may be of use to large firms, but scarcely to the small self-employed driver.
Yet even establishing the simple fact of a disruption and financial losses would not be sufficient to justify damages. The court will look at whether the member-state acted reasonably in trying to attenuate the effects of the action and might well, for example, find in favour of the softly, softly approach taken by the French.
In January, during protests by French hauliers against long hours, the Commission and several governments protested loudly but acknowledged privately that a more confrontational approach could easily have led to violence.
Brussels can do little more than exhort member-states and remind them of their obligations - but do we really want a Commission that could do more?