The Justice Secretary made the historical comparison to Einstein after being asked why voters should not listen to the economic organisations warning about the impact of an Out vote. “I think the key thing here is to interrogate the assumptions that are made and to ask if these arguments are good,” Mr Gove said during an interview with LBC Radio.

“We have to be careful about historical comparisons, but Albert Einstein during the 1930s was denounced by the German authorities for being wrong and his theories were denounced and one of the reasons of course he was denounced was because he was Jewish. They got 100 German scientists in the pay of the government to say that he was wrong and Einstein said ‘Look, if I was wrong, one would have been enough.’”

He added: “The truth is that if you look at the quality of the analysis, if you look at the facts on the ground, you can come to an appropriate conclusion. And the appropriate conclusion, I think, all of us can come to is that with growth rates so low in Europe, with so many unemployed and with the nature of the single currency so damaging, freeing ourselves from that project can only strength our economy.”

Banks have doubled their holdings of their own states' debt since 2008, according to Standard and Poor's, despite plans over the past five years to cut back on the exposures. When banks invest heavily in one government’s debt, the banks become dependent on the government’s good performance, and the governments depend on the banks purchasing the debt.

If either one falters, the consequences can be dire for both. For example, in Greece, broken banks needed bailing out, but few other investors wanted to lend money to the Greek government. When the Greek government was bailed out and defaulted on its debts, the very banks it had tried to support were hit hardest, as they were the holders of that debt.

In the wake of the Greek crisis, banks and policymakers wanted to end that mutual dependence and reduce the chance of another doom loop developing. Yet figures from credit ratings agency Standard and Poor’s show that banks across the EU have been investing more heavily in government debt, increasing their exposures. Western European banks have more than doubled their holdings of their own governments’ debt from a low of €355 billion in September 2008 to €791 billion today.

24 years later Soros is back, and this time he is warning against the kind of devaluation that made him a billionaire and which he believes will be unleashed by Brexit, when in a Guardian Op-Ed he wrote that UK voters are “grossly underestimating” the true costs of a vote to leave the EU, saying that there would be an “immediate and dramatic impact on financial markets, investment, prices and jobs.”

He predicts that the pound would decline “precipitously”, seeing a gargantuan drop of at least 15% and possibly >20% to below $1.15. Considering it has now become trendy for analysts to come up with ever “doomier” forecasts of just how low cable would plunge in case of Brexit, we are surprised Soros stopped there.

Here Soros makes the distinction how the collapse in cable would be different from the one that made him richer by saying that this devaluation wouldn’t be “healthy” like the one in 1992 because BOE wouldn’t cut rates, the UK has a large current account deficit and devaluation is unlikely to improve manufacturing exports this time. Just don’t tell that to the BOJ (Bank of Japan), which would gladly leave the EU – twice if it had to – if it meant a 20% devaluation.

Of course, Soros' set of facts may be clouded by his far greater equity stake in equity interests around Europe, and the globe, which would be drastially impacted by not only a Brexit, but by a European Union which is suddenly on the rocks. From that point on, Soros' entire analysis is on the "worst case" scenario centered around a collapsing pound, something which most ironically every other central bank around the globe is so desperate to achieve.

With record-setting heat and air conditioning demand expected in Southern California, the state’s power grid operator issued a so-called “flex alert,” urging consumers to conserve energy to help prevent rotating power outages – which could occur regardless.

That could put stress on the power grid, particularly with the shut-in of Aliso Canyon, following a massive leak at the underground storage facility in October [Editor’s Note: which was not stopped fully until mid-February 2016]. The large-scale natural gas disaster – which curiously escaped media frenzy and widespread environmental concern – has resulted in the shutdown of key storage facilities that supply most of the power for the southern portion of the state.

If the power grid fails, a lack of electricity and food delivery are only the first wave of troubles facing the American people. Police could face major problems with civil unrest. Of course, there also would not be any electric heating or cooling, which easily could lead to many deaths depending on the season.

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.