This week, Gordon Brown and the French President Nicholas Sarkozy, will sign up to an entente atomique and herald in a new era of cross channel cooperation.
The pact will be announced later this week at the "Arsenal summit" held at the Emirates stadium, the nominal home of French exiles and sportsmen alike, where Brown will open the proverbial front door to French utility Electricity de France (EDF), and its burgeoning workforce, to come build and operate any new nuclear power stations here in the UK.
They will claim that nuclear power is the bedrock of global energy security and a necessary tool in the fight against climate change, but do these claims stand up to scrutiny? Does political mantra really mean solid answers to the bigger questions on climate change and how to keep the lights on?
The simple fact is that building new nuclear stations actually threatens our ability to reduce the UK's carbon emissions, and whilst the government would like most people to think nuclear power can deliver energy security, it can't. The government's figures speak for themselves - a new fleet of nuclear power stations would cut UK emissions only by around four per cent some time after the year 2025.
Yet despite this, it would appear that Carla Bruni is not the only one to fall for the eccentric little Frenchman's charms, as Brown panders to his more colorful political counterpart and succumbs to French foreign policy. See, the thing is, Sarkozy has recently been clocking up the air miles promoting nuclear power and selling the technology to emerging markets in the Middle East, South Africa and South America, and the UK is key to his sales pitch.
Because, after all, this is about seizing an opportunity to capitalise on the renewed interest in nuclear power and promote French business and not about global energy solutions. The French do not need to build more nuclear power stations - they generate a surplus each year which is the equivalent of 10 nuclear reactors.
This is about promoting their industrial philosophy. If nuclear power really was to be a panacea in the fight against climate change, and to have any real impact in reducing global carbon emissions, it would be necessary to build over 40 nuclear power plants every year for the next 75 years. That's three a month and that's not going to happen - there's more chance of Theo Walcott hitting a rather large barn door from 12 yards - and it is nothing more than a dangerous distraction and one that could suffocate the development of the real solutions to tackling climate change.
But what this week's summit does expose is the political schizophrenia at the heart of the government's energy policy. At a time when Brown is desperate to cast himself as a bold, global leader, he actually appears as nothing more than the ministerial equivalent of a rabbit in the headlights, not knowing which way to turn.
Indeed, Gordon Brown only recently committed the UK to generating around 40% of our electricity from renewables by 2020. If he means it, Britain could become a world leader in clean energy and the case for nuclear evaporates. These cuts could be delivered quicker, much more cheaply and do not come with the intractable and unresolved problem of radioactive waste.
If we looked to another European neighbour, Germany, which has developed 300 times as much solar power and 10 times as much wind power installed as the UK - installing the equivalent of the UK's total nuclear capacity from renewables and efficiency measures in the last five years - the case for nuclear would be on the first Eurostar back to Paris and the UK could genuinely depend on generating it's own secure energy and honestly claim to be leading the march in tackling climate change.