Clearly the EU has not fulfilled its objective of “ever closer union” and now, as Tusk acknowledges, it never can. That raises the interesting question of whether any ideology – of the left, the right or, in this case, the centre – could ever achieve its founding purpose. I doubt if any utopian plan has survived contact with the unpredictable reality of events. Ideals may inspire, but all too often they contain a self-defeating element. In the case of Europe, the very process of unification was bound to excite the nationalistic reactions that the whole project was hoping to eliminate.

But the EU’s flaws do not justify its destruction. Alliances are fragile entities. They take time to create and are always vulnerable to vicious circles of suspicion and resentment. Whatever we might think of the EU – whether we love it or loathe it – one thing is certain. If Britain pulls out and thus provokes or accelerates its disintegration, we will instantly achieve most-hated nation status, not just in Europe but far beyond. It could well turn into the worst example in history of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

For most people in Britain, it’s difficult to even imagine the emotional pull that an open Europe has on the German imagination. Throughout history, Germany’s borders have fluctuated – due to foreign invasion, by the Swedes, say, in the 17th or the French in the 18th; or due to German aggression and its failure in the 19th and 20th centuries. To be “surrounded by friends”, as chancellor Helmut Kohl put it, was a completely new experience, and given our history, a piece of good fortune for those who were “born late”.

Kohl’s opposite number in Britain – Margaret Thatcher – was less prone to believe that the “late-born” Germans were different from their fathers and mothers. “By its very nature, Germany is a destabilising, rather than a stabilising force in Europe,” Thatcher wrote in her memoirs, explaining why she had tried to get Mikhail Gorbachev to oppose German reunification. She also met with leading historians in order to understand the German “national character”.

According to the memorandum of the meeting, this included “angst, aggressiveness, assertiveness, bullying, egotism, inferiority complexes and sentimentality”. Kohl himself might have agreed with her; his predecessor Helmut Schmidt certainly did. Both saw the European Union as a means to contain German nationalism. Indeed, this has been the raison d’être of European integration since the very start.

When elections come up in the eastern state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (where Merkel has her constituency) this autumn, the AfD may become the strongest party, and in 2017 it will enter the Bundestag. The success of the AfD will increase the pressure on any government to put Germany first, and Europe, Nato and the west second.

This is in direct contradiction with European treaties which state that the commission is nothing more than a "government agency." German news magazine Spiegel commented: "Juncker sees himself as the head of a government - one who has made it his job to break agreements if it appears politically advantageous."

On refugees he wants to force EU member states to accept other countries' offers to provide police officers to help protect their borders and has threatened states with monetary penalties should they not accept them. And Juncker has begun making comments in public that make it seem as though he believes the growth and stability pact no longer applies. "Because it's France," he recently answered when asked why he was allowing the country additional exceptions to the debt rules. "A foolhardy thing to say," said one top EU diplomat of his comment.

"Some conservative political leaders think that Juncker has unnecessarily given ammunition to the Brexiteers and has also strengthened Euroskepticism in Germany. Jean-Claude Juncker's romanticism about Europe no longer works in the 21st century," says one high-ranking German conservative to Spiegel. If Brexit comes to pass, he says, Europe would need a new narrative. "I have my doubts that Juncker would be able to embody it."

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, as the most senior Hierarch in the Orthodox Church, presided over the Divine Liturgy, and was joined by Patriarchs Theodore of Alexandria, Theophilos of Jerusalem, Irinej of Serbia, Daniel of Romania, and Archbishops Chrysostomos of Cyprus and Ieronymos of Athens and all Greece, Metropolitan Sawa of Warsaw and all Poland, Archbishops Anastasios of Albania and Rastislav of Czech Lands and Slovakia.

Addressing the Primates and an overflow crowd of bishops, clergy and laity both inside and outside the church, the Ecumenical Patriarch spoke of the unity and catholicity of the Church as a single Body of Christ symbolized by the feast of Pentecost, which Orthodox Christians celebrate as the day when the Holy Spirit came down and entered the original disciples of Christ.

Bartholomew’s words touched numerous points of contention and angst of contemporary Orthodoxy — a church that is “united” in faith and dogma, whose independent heads have complete and full jurisdiction over their church and territories, which are usually carved along national divides.

But as is often the case, the Churches have rivalry and conflict amongst themselves, the largest being that between Constantinople and Moscow, whose Patriarch Kirill, has overtly and covertly challenged the primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, which has traditionally and historically been the “first amongst equals” of the Orthodox world.

Manto added, “Instead of implying that US communities can always count on being rescued from any disaster in four days – requiring three days of food and water to stay comfortable – the implication now is that local communities might not always receive assistance for a much longer period of time.” Manto explained that the new strategy acknowledges that “unlike the cases of Hurricanes Katrina or Sandy, where help could come within a week or so, help might not arrive in 40 days, or even 400 days.”

“Long-term national outages of power and other infrastructures that depend on them – including water, sewer, communications, and healthcare institutions – could mean that the entire country might undergo a catastrophe and might not be able to quickly mobilize resources to help many communities,” Manto wrote.

A long-term disaster is not simply theoretical, Manto asserted. Each decade brings anywhere from a 6-12 percent chance of an 1859 Carrington event, according to scientists. During that year, the sun experienced a solar storm of such magnitude that it would have shut down the power grid if it had existed. “That is a significant likelihood for such a calamitous occurrence,” Manto wrote.

It has defined the relationship between citizen and government, subject and crown, limiting the excesses of arbitrary power, empowering individuals and instilling the rule of law so that, as Professor AV Dicey put it, "every man, whatever be his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals". It is rightly a potent symbol of freedom.

In the same way as those medieval Barons summoned up the courage to take back control from an irrepressible monarch, so must 21st century Britons find the same resolve to challenge the loss of sovereignty to Brussels.

We see why in the European legal system. The European Court of Justice (the "ECJ"), based in Luxembourg, has jurisdiction over all members states and must "ensure that in the interpretation and application of the Treaty the law is observed”, according to The Treaty of Rome, agreed in 1957.

However, the role of the ECJ has amplified so that it bears no resemblance to the intentions set out in 1957. Far from simply interpreting the law, it has gone further to rule on what it thinks the law should actually say. In doing so, it has profoundly changed the content of Treaties, determined social, economic and immigration policy, constitutional questions and encroached into the realm of human rights. A far cry from "interpretation". Just as within a federal system, the ECJ has, case by case, become a Supreme Court, usurping English courts and judges.

Britain’s precious sovereignty is ebbing away. Legislation is foisted upon us with immediate effect and no right of challenge. What was designed to be "Supreme" in our domestic courts system has become submissive, yielding to the might of our European masters.

Foremost among these are the US presidential election in November and the rapidly approaching Brexit referendum — coming up on June 23. And what is the Bilderberg consensus on these two issues? Simple: Trump must be stopped (and Hillary elected); the Brexit must be stopped (and the UK kept forever trapped in the evolving EU “Project”). More Bilderberg consensus: Flooding the EU with “refugee” migration must continue; populist political revolts against the elites in Austria, Hungary, the UK, Italy, France, and elsewhere must be neutralized; the TPP and TTIP globalist trade schemes must be formally approved; more bailouts (and “bail-ins”) of Too-Big-to-Fail banks and corporations must be readied — and much, much more.

With the Bilderberg confab hermetically sealed, how can I claim knowledge of the secret “consensus”? At a previous BG conference in Germany, Rockefeller spilled the beans in a tender bouquet to his co-conspirators in the media. “We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years,” he told the 1991 attendees. “It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during these years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government which will never again know war but only peace and prosperity for the whole of humanity.”

In 2000, veteran Bilderberg member Denis Healy, the former British Labour Party leader and former chancellor of the exchequer, provided another public confirmation of Rockefeller’s private quip. “To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair,” Healy told The Guardian. “Those of us in Bilderberg felt … that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing.”

In 2002, Rockefeller expounded further in his autobiographical Memoirs. Describing himself as a “proud internationalist” who is working for “one world,” he labeled as “ideological extremists” those critics who “believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will.” But Rockefeller went on to say: “If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

With hardcore one-worlders such as Henry Kissinger, IMF Director Christine Lagarde, former EU Commission President José Manuel Barroso, Carnegie Endowment President William J Burns, and Google/Alphabet chief Eric Schmidt as a representative sampling, it’s not out of place to surmise that the Bilderberg confrères discussed the means at their disposal to thwart a British vote to exit their prized EU “Project.” And they do have considerable, frightful means at their disposal.

As for the GOP's likely candidate, Donald J Trump, he's brash, he is often unrefined, he says what is on his mind at any given moment, and he lacks government experience. His likely Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, comes with her own baggage as well, and in fact, to many, her vast government experience is seen as a hindrance, not a benefit.

Millions of voters view her as a card-carrying member of the ruling "establishment" – corrupt, compromised and untrustworthy, as the first (likely) presidential candidate who is actively under criminal investigation by the federal government.

But Clinton has another negative against her as well: the fact that she's a promoter of GMOs, and that one of the corporations that has her in their back pocket is Monsanto. As reported by Global Research, a Canada-based think tank, Clinton's views on GMOs are quite at odds with those of the current first lady, Michelle Obama, who reportedly insists that all White House meals be organic.

The 18-year-old runner, who was born in Thailand as a male but identifies as a female, qualified and competed in the Class 3A girls' sprints, capturing third place in the 200-meter preliminaries and fifth place in the 100-meter.

Earlier this year, the Alaska School Activities Association (ASAA) adopted a policy allowing schools and school districts to make up their own rules regarding transgender athletes. According to the Chilkat Valley News, the Haines Borough School District policy allows transgenders to compete in district programs and activities as the gender they identify with.

"For the purposes of gender identification for interscholastic activities, the district will consider the gender identity based on the student's consistent declaration of gender identity, their actions, attitude, dress and mannerisms. Everybody doesn't understand, and that's OK," said principal Martin. "But you still have to show respect, and we work together and we talk about things and we try to make it respectful for everybody."

This time, however, reporters didn’t need to break through a barricaded but unguarded residence — the FBI simply left the door unlocked after its initial investigation. Actually, make that two doors — the apartment’s front and back doors were not only left unlocked, they weren’t barricaded, even with the ubiquitous yellow crime scene tape.

And just like San Bernardino — when a slew of reporters rummaged through the shooter’s belongings — media crews made a mockery of the FBI in live time, snapping pictures, pushing items around, tweeting in real time pictures from Mateen’s bathroom. Pure sensationalist gawkery on display.

As an independent media narrator of a well-assembled video of this farce wryly queried, “I’m starting to think this is actually part of a social experiment to prove how many people are not paying attention — or just watching Dancing With the Stars and football, and just don’t care.”