It was like a game. The frustrated journalists, desperate for a story, baited the embattled Ms Sarah Lambert, spokeswoman for the Transport Commissioner, Mr Neil Kinnock. There is, it seems, an irresistible temptation these days to believe that, whatever the question is, "Brussels" is the answer. And nowhere more so than in the Brussels press corps. They, at least, should know better.

"Far be it from me to put truth in the way of a good story but, no, I will not be drawn down that path," Ms Lambert insisted as they demanded a commitment to legal action against the French government, or condemnation of the strikers, or specific advice to Paris on how to handle the dispute . . .

On Monday, Ms Lambert had mentioned the information service for truckers on the Minitel, France's computer-based telephone information system. At the back of the crowded press room one hapless, hard-of-hearing hack asked if she had just called for the "military" to intervene?

"No, no, no . . ."

Yesterday she was again explaining that the Commission had no legal competence over, nor any intention of questioning, the right to strike. It was, however, deeply concerned. Mr Kinnock was monitoring the situation closely and liaising with those affected, and as the "defender of the treaty" had fulfilled his obligation to point out to the French their duty to uphold the rights of free movement enshrined in it.

No more than that, she said. If the Commission had no more powers, she reminded another provocateur, it was because the member-states did not want them to have any more powers. The Commission would, however, continue its long-term work on some of the issues related to the strike such as the questions of working time and standards in the industry.

The Commission does, in theory, have the option of taking France to the European Court of Justice for its failure to uphold the principle in Article Five of the European Treaty of free movement of labour and goods.

But to do so it would have to show a negligent failure on the French government's part, a case that would be very difficult to argue in a court which accepts the principle of subsidiarity, that member-states must be given a degree of discretion in their implementation of Community rules.

It would be politically intolerable, moreover, for the Commission, let alone a former leader of a Labour Party, to tell France that it should send in the bulldozers to break a strike.

And, privately, diplomats and officials have been complimentary about the initial handling of the dispute by Paris. They accept that little else could have been done by the authorities.

"We do not rule out the option ultimately of legal action, but that would be an extremely serious step to take, and we are certainly not going to be rushed into any action," Ms Lambert said yesterday.

And now the Minister for Public Enterprise, Ms O'Rourke, has joined in with a call to convene an emergency meeting of the Council of Transport Ministers.

In reality, the Commission and the Council of Ministers can do little more than issue exhortations to the French and act as diplomatic forums in and through which pressure can be exerted.

On Friday, before the strike began, what one diplomat described as a "robust" meeting of EU ambassadors (Coreper) heard appeals to the French from those likely to be most directly affected, the Irish, British, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch and Belgians.

They were given assurances that all would be done by the police to avoid confrontations between local truckers and foreign drivers and that Paris would try to improve the system of compensation. Currently, thousands of claims have been made in relation to the 1996 dispute, but few have been settled.

The French warned, however, that the suggestion of creating special "corridors" could be counterproductive, inviting strikers to target precisely such routes.

Ambassadors are to meet again today to discuss the issue and are likely to take soundings on the usefulness of an emergency meeting of transport ministers. That would be at the discretion of the Luxembourg Presidency, which will be reluctant to call such a meeting unless it is clear what it can do.

"It would only be called if governments felt that it was worthwhile and it could do something to help end this situation," Ms Lambert said yesterday.

Brussels sources are sceptical of the suggestion of a central EU compensation fund. Such a fund, they say, would require the financial and political support of the very memberstates which believe the French should compensate those out of pocket.

They are also coy about the possibility, also mooted in Dublin yesterday, of Mr Kinnock acting as a mediator in the dispute. If this is a runner, the time is certainly not right now, they say; in the meantime, the Commissioner must avoid becoming involved.