DOROTHY Parker is said to have reacted to the news of the death of that distinctly underwhelming US President, Calvin Coolidge, with the words: "How could they, tell?" The news that Britain is to step up its disruption of European's Union business is being greeted here in much the same vein.

Mr John Major is no de Gaulle; and his threat to block unanimity decisions and the work of the Inter Governmental Conference (IGC) is no "empty chair" policy.

"British pledge to paralyse the EU", the Times trumpeted in banner headlines across its front page. Well, that's not what's expected to happen have changed since those months in 1965 when de Gaulle blocked all movement in the Community by refusing to attend meetings. Majority voting is now the rule in most EU decisions. The reality is that, on most of those few decisions looming in the short term which do require unanimous backing, Britain has already been wielding its veto. So, what's new, diplomats are asking.

It has been clear for a long time the IGC cannot be concluded until, after a British general election as the Tories have ruled out the slightest extension of majority voting which is seen as key by most other member states. With the IGC operating on the basis of nothing is agreed until everything is agreed", the British veto does not arise in a practical sense until the final stages of negotiations.

On Europol, whose convention has already been held up for a year by London's refusal to sanction a role for the European Court of Justice, the British had hinted they intended lifting their veto at a meeting on June 4th. That is unlikely now but it is difficult to see who will benefit by further delay other than criminals.

Other unanimity decisions in the pipeline include work being done yesterday by ministers on co ordinating responses to natural disasters.

More significantly, there are proposals from the President of the Commission, Mr Jacques Santer, to shift savings from the farm budget into job creation, rather than handing money back to the member states. But those projected savings are fast disappearing anyway - thanks to the BSE crisis.

Mr Major's threat to turn the Florence summit into one on BSE is being met with weary resignation by diplomats. They point out that, even if the British Prime Minister vetoes the summit's final conclusions, they can still be issued in the name of the Presidency on behalf of 14 member states.

IT is difficult not to conclude that this is a domestic exercise in sabre rattling by, to paraphrase Mao Zedong, a British "paper bulldog". But there is no doubt that both the issue and continued blocking of unanimity votes could blight the Irish Presidency if a formula for a timetable for the relaxation of the ban is not found in the coming months.

Procedurally, the ball game has changed since the meeting of the Standing Veterinary Committee on Monday. Then, Britain and the Commission required a "qualified majority" of the 87 votes for the latter's position to be approved. A "block majority" of 27 was easily surpassed when Germany mustered some 39 votes from seven member states - Germany (10 votes), Spain (8), Portugal, Belgium and Netherlands (5 each), Austria (4) and Luxembourg (2).

But because the Commission has special treaty powers in regulatory areas involving the single market it can now reaffirm its decision, as it did on Wednesday, and put it through under another procedure. This time, Germany, in order to block the decision, will require to muster a majority - eight of the member states.

And, although the emergency ministers' meeting on June 3rd still requires a "qualified majority" of votes to give ministerial sanction to the Commission proposal, the latter is entitled to enact the measure independently if the measure has not been blocked by the eight states.

Thus, it appears on the evidence of Monday night's balance of forces that the Commission already has enough votes for June 3rd to lift the tallow gelatin part of the ban. While the Benelux countries indicating privately they are likely to join the majority on that issue - the Dutch, only if semen remains banned - the Commission may even get the "handsome majority" which the Minister for Agriculture, Mr Yates, believes to be politically desirable. He believes a closely divided vote will undermine credibility in a decision supposed to be based on an objective scientific assessment of the evidence.

CLEARLY, the real significance of Mr Major's dramatic Commons statement lies not in his concern about gelatin and tallow but in two other directions. First it constitutes a domestic political bid to give the impression of action. This follows the dashing of expectations of a breakthrough raised by Mr Major's own ministers. (Incidentally, polls show more of the British public blame their own government for the crisis than blame the EU.)

Secondly, on the European stage, Mr Major hopes he can bludgeon member states into agreeing at least a "framework" for the lifting of the overall ban. He hopes to do this on the basis of Britain's latest selective slaughter proposals.

His success depends on the willingness of member states to accept that his proposals are scientifically sustainable. It will also depend on allowing sufficient time to elapse for the public to be reassured. Both issues are intertwined for most countries, with the Germans most blunt about the need for consumer confidence to be the real criterion for lifting the ban.

German sources say they are likely to oppose any lifting of the ban well into next year. If they fail in blocking such moves, there is an expectation that the Lander will impose their own bans.

While beef consumption has fallen by only 6 per cent in Britain, it is down 45 per cent in Germany, 40 per cent in Spain, and 60 per cent in Italy. Restoring these markets is a huge challenge.

Winning the confidence of a sufficient number to lift the ban is likely to take months. London can take comfort from the support given by the Agriculture Commissioner, Mr Franz Fischler, for the basic approach - although not the details - outlined by the British in their latest formal proposals for a selective cull of 80,000 cattle.