The Italian people are renowned for their kindness, generosity and large humanity and currently they are demonstrating this spirit of charity and welcome on an epic scale as their navy has rescued from drowning at sea 150.000 migrants fleeing from instability, poverty and wars all across North Africa and the Middle East. I have just read a report in an Italian newspaper which claims there are 600,000 migrants massing on these African and Middle Eastern shores waiting to find a boat to take them to Europe.

When the migrants – most of whom are impoverished Muslims, of course – land in Italy, they are distributed among refugee camps throughout the country. Others. according to that newspaper report, “…simply wander off and try to make their way north.”

As far as Calais, perhaps?

Humanitarian acts are always gallant and praiseworthy, but there is another side to this tale. The migrations are not haphazard but part of a huge and hugely profitable trafficking racket. A typical scenario features the traffickers – or the migrants themselves on phones provided by the racketeers – contacting the Italian naval authorities, giving their position and asking to be picked up.

I wonder if this is the first time such a taxi service has facilitated a massive transfer of populations?

The newspaper reported that “the Italian right” is vociferously objecting to these mass rescues. I wonder also if one has to be a paid up supporter of “the right” to object to this criminal scandal which is in no one’s ultimate interest except that of the traffickers who are being wonderfully enriched?

Well, according to the BBC this morning, the Italian navy is to cease its rescue operations which are in future to be carried out “…in a joint operation organised by the EU.”

Thus racketeering is to be supported and the illegal immigration of tens of thousands officially legitimated by European governments, including ours.

Is this a good thing?

I only asked.   

Michael Fallon has been telling the truth, so naturally he is in big trouble with supporters of the lies factory which is the EU, The defence secretary says:

“In some areas, particularly on the east coast, yes, towns do feel under siege from large numbers of migrant workers and people claiming benefits. It is quite right that we look at that. The original Treaty when it was drawn up 50 years ago did not envisage these vast movements of people, and we are perfectly entitled to say this needs to be looked at again.”

The lies factory has been churning out its blatant untruths ever since the days of Edward Heath who assured the British people that our membership of the European project would never entail any dilution of national sovereignty – while at the same time he was working assiduously for exactly that. But the architects and founders of the EU were more honest about their intentions. The intention from the start was to create a political union: effectually one country Europe with the old nation states classified as regions. 

The German-French politician Robert Schuman (1886-1963) is sometimes called The Father of Europe for what became known as the Schuman Declaration in which he called for the formation of a supranational community and reorganisation of post-war Europe through treaties. And it was Schuman who began the post-war French-German co-operation that created the European Coal and Steel Community, later joined by Italy and the Benelux countries. The date of the drafting of the Schuman Declaration, 9 May 1950 has ever since been celebrated, bemoaned or largely ignored as Europe Day.

Then there was Konrad Adenauer (1876-1967). The first post-war Chancellor of West Germany whose main ambition was the reconciliation of Germany and its European neighbours after the Second World War. And Adenauer played a big part in the formation of the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) Crucial was the Elysee Treaty, signed by Adenauer and Charles de Gaulle in 1963 which papered over the rivalry between France and Germany – or, if you prefer, continued Hitler’s subjugation of France, once again with France’s co-operation. This is what made the EU possible.

Paul-Henry Spaak (1899-1972), three times Belgian Prime Minister, was one of the strongest supporters of European integration after the war. He led the committee named after him that produced a plan for what was then called a common market and a European Community. The Spaak Report was basic to the Intergovernmental Conference on the Common Market and Euratom in 1956 and the founding Treaty of Rome the following year.

Jean Monnet (1888-1979) a devious French diplomat, political economist and general apparatchik, never held public office but he was one of the main architects of the EU. Monnet plotted political union by gradualism and stealth. He was the master of the conspicuous art of saying one thing and doing the opposite. This is what made him so admired by such as Edward Heath, Roy Jenkins and Kenneth Clarke who, along with many others are faithful heirs and successors to their idol.

We shouldn’t forget Alcide De Gasperi (1881-1954), the Prime Minister of Italy from 1945 to 1953. De Gasperi was, I believe, the first man to argue for a common European defence policy.

If you wanted to create a European Superstate, how would you go about it? You would need a Common Agricultural Policy. Done. A Common Fisheries Policy. Done. A European Central Bank. Done. A single currency. Done. A customs union. Done. You would need a central authority to override the parliaments of the individual nation states. In order for this to work efficiently, it would have to be unelected and unaccountable to democratic processes. This we have in the European Commission.

Above all, you would need to ensure the free movement of nationals throughout the EU with the purpose of creating a melting pot of nationalities guaranteed gradually to obliterate the sense of national identity. This would also require a law to criminalise any opposition to this policy of free movement as “racist.”

Done. Welcome to the European Superstate.

Fiona Woolf is being interviewed by a House of Commons Select Committee concerning her eligibility to be chairman of a new enquiry into historic child abuse. Charities supporting the victims of such abuse have objected to Mrs Woolf’s appointment on the grounds that she is too close to the very Establishment which is suspected of covering up the abuse. They have singled out in particular the fact that Mrs Woolf was at five dinner parties with Leon Brittan, the former home secretary.

Mrs Woolf denies being a member of the Establishment. I suppose the next thing we shall hear is Bill Gates telling us he’s not rich.

Not a member of the Establishment? Of course she isn’t…

She was Aldermanic Sheriff of London. Now she is the 686th Lord Mayor of London and lives in Mansion House. Global ambassador for UK finance. President of the Law Society. Honorary member of Middle Temple and on the Court of three City of London livery companies. A governor of the Guildhall School of Music and Drama. Chairman of Chelsea Opera.

She is CBE and, when she’s completed her mayoral year, she will in all probability and following the usual pattern, be created Dame Fiona Woolf.

Nah – not a member of the Establishment – just an ordinary gel!

Not only is Mrs Woolf at the very centre of where it’s at in the traditional Establishment, she is also at the very centre of the new Establishment of Fashionable & Politically-correct Causes. Her declared project when she was elected Lord Mayor was the furtherance of women in executive careers. She is also a big noise in the Raleigh Trust which promotes sustainable development.

She said on the BBC this morning that she has to maintain her “network.” More dinner parties with cabinet ministers, I suppose, and fellow members of the Great and the Good. One of the ways in which she maintains her “network” – so she told us – is to send 3000 Christmas cards. She was asked if she sent a Christmas card to Leon Brittan and replied she couldn’t remember – which might seem to undermine the purpose of sending Christmas cards in the first place.

None of these things disqualifies Mrs Woolf from chairing the enquiry to which she has been appointed.

But not a member of the Establishment?

I must remember to ask her about that at the next Mansion House banquet.