I spent part of last week in Brussels.

The last time I was there, in December, my hotel near the European Parliament had armed guards outside and before you could enter guests had to empty their pockets, reveal the contents of their luggage and submit to an airport-style security check.

This time things were far more relaxed, although it probably helped that I was staying in a smaller hotel a bit further away.

Wherever I went I was asked about the referendum. Most of the people I spoke to were not so much pro-EU as, "This is the way it is, there's nothing we can do."

No-one tried to change my view that Britain should leave. Instead there was a sense of amusement that we're even debating the issue let alone voting on it.

What you have to understand is that in Brussels many people genuinely believe the EU is a single political entity and a major world power in its own right.

"Rival powers" are Russia and the United States.

For many therefore it is incomprehensible that any member state would decide to walk away from the strengh and security this self-proclaimed world power allegedly provides.

Far from being alarmed they find it funny. Let's see who's laughing on June 24.

En route to Brussels I got a call inviting me to comment on a recent OECD report that suggested tobacco tariffs could rise by 70 per cent if Britain left the EU.

Some analysts suggest this figure is exaggerated and ignores the possibility of the UK importing more from outside the EU if tariffs do go up.

Truth is, no-one knows what will happen if the UK leaves, or remains. There may be more unknowns if we leave but for me that's part of the appeal.

More of the same – including further integration in a federal 'super state' – is a foul, grim, wretched and even hellish prospect. So threaten us with higher tariffs (and worse), nothing is going to change my vote to leave.

I didn't say any of this of course because Forest has no position on Brexit. Instead I fell back on that time-honoured ruse:

"I'm sorry, it's a very bad line ... can hardly hear you ... train about to enter the tunnel ... hello?" [Silence.]

On this occasion however it was entirely true.

Tuesday was World No Tobacco Day. To 'celebrate' this annual event the European Parliament hosted two events, a half-day conference and a cocktail reception.

The latter was hosted by the Smoke Free Partnership, "a strategic, independent and flexible partnership between Cancer Research UK, the European Heart Network and Action on Smoking and Health (UK)."

Naturally I applied to attend but five hours after my registration was confirmed I received this reply:

Due to limited capacity and very high demand of participation to the event, I regret to inform you that we will not be able to accept your registration this time.

Very high demand? Possibly, but I suspect my application fell victim to this restriction:

The tobacco industry and those representing tobacco industry interests are not welcome, in accordance with the Guidelines of Article 5.3 FCTC. Due to the fact that the relationship between individuals and organisations representing [the] tobacco industry’s interest is not always declared, all registrations will be screened.

I'm not complaining. Assuming it was a private event they can invite or exclude whoever they want (although I would dispute that Forest represents "tobacco industry interests").

Nevertheless it's not a great advertisement for the European Parliament when events that actively prohibit legitimate stakeholders from engaging with elected representatives are supported and effectively endorsed by the host institution.

The sad thing is my expectations of 'public health' and the European Parliament are now so low I expected nothing else and so I double-booked dinner safe in the knowledge I wouldn't have to cancel.

While the World Health Organisation used World No Tobacco Day to promote plain packaging, pro-vaping advocates seized the opportunity to promote e-cigarettes.

Leading the way was Mark Pawsey, MP for Rugby and chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on E-Cigarettes whose byline appeared on an article published online by New Europe, a weekly Brussels-based newspaper.

Responding to WHO Director-General Margaret Chan who last year stated that “all governments should ban e-cigarettes or electronic nicotine delivery systems”, Pawsey declared:

E-cigarettes are helping millions of people to stop smoking. So I find it inexplicable that the World Health Organisation is threatening to ban them.

To this he added:

Given the mounting scientific evidence around the harm reduction potential of e-cigarettes common sense dictates that we should be doing all we can to endorse, promote and advocate their use among tobacco users – not ban them.

I've no problem with that. I do however have an issue with the fact that Pawsey finds it "disturbing" and "mind-bogglingly incomprehensible" that millions of people still smoke, commenting, "There are too many smokers in the world."

Too many? Who does he think he is to make that kind of judgement? And how many is "too many"?

Like me Pawsey is a non-smoker but at least I've made an effort to understand why many people smoke. I also recognise that smokers aren't easily categorised. (Ditto vapers, btw.)

There are many types of smoker including one very important group – adults who know the health risks but enjoy smoking and have no wish to stop.

David Hockney, now in his seventies, is a member of that group. He has explained many times why he smokes. In 2007, for example, he told the Guardian:

I smoke for my mental health. I think it's good for it, and I certainly prefer its calming effects to the pharmaceutical ones (side effects unknown)

In 2009, also in the Guardian, he wrote:

There are a lot of people who don't like smoke or smoking but there are a lot of people who do. Tobacco is a great calmer, it relieves stress, it can put you in a contemplative mood.

Hockney, a friend of Forest, has continued to write and comment in a similar vein.

Meanwhile, in an interview in the Mail on Sunday last week, actor Jeremy Irons said of smoking:

For me it's a sort of meditation, it calms me."

There are other reasons why people smoke but like the never smoker he is Pawsey finds it "disturbing" and "mind-bogglingly incomprehensible".

Personally I find it "disturbing" and "mind-bogglingy incomprehensible" that anyone, especially a politician, would admit to having such a closed mind.

Unfortunately an increasing number seem to wear their ignorance and incomprehension as a badge of honour.

The result is that even pro-vaping advocates like Pawsey are as much a part of the nanny state as the Brussels' bureaucrats they condemn for over-regulating e-cigarettes.

His comments also demonstrate that on issues like this there's very little to choose between Brussels and Westminster. In Britain as in Europe state paternalism is alive and well.

See WHO celebrates World No Tobacco Day, ignores potential of e-cigarettes (New Europe).