It really is quite ironic that the Sunday Telegraph should refer in the opening lines of its leader on our future "in Europe" to the symbolism of the Olympic torch.
The leader writer is highly entertained by the fate of torch. Freshly kindled, it entered the ancient stadium [in Athens] to begin its journey to these shores, when a strong gust of wind snuffed it out. But what it misses completely is that the torch relay is a modern artefact invented by Hitler's Nazis for the glorification of the Third Reich.
Everything about the ceremony is false, so the acceptance at face value of the vainglorious posturing perhaps illustrates much more about the state of our politics and people than the paper might like to admit.
The leader itself, though, deals with what John Rentoul in the Independent on Sunday calls the "babyish demand for a referendum", although he is the last person on this earth to be in a position to throw stones.
As an alternative, this pompous fart tells us that we should instead "start arguing for what they really believe about the costs and benefits of Britain's membership of the EU". Yet, a cost-benefit analysis of our membership of the EU is precisely what eurosceptics have been demanding for many moons, and it is precisely that which europhiles like Rentoul have been so keen to avoid.
Nevertheless, being a pompous fart does not make him entirely wrong about all things (even if he gets close), and he is right to question the growing referendum meme, as lacking in substance.
Indeed, it is one of those mad memes so beloved of the chatterati. Maybe it is filling the gap in those empty lives which used to be entertained by speculation on early general elections or whether Tony Blair was going to resign and become president of the United States [of Europe].
This does not stop the Sunday Failygraph running with the meme though. Its political acumen and insight is about as lightweight as the daily, so it is arguing, in the context of the eurozone crisis, that "it is time for the Government to assemble a blueprint for what our relationship with Europe should look like once the dust has settled".
It is this fatuity against which my erstwhile editor has so often railed, pointing out that we do not have a relationship with "Europe". Neither do we have one with the European Union. We are in the European Union, we are part of it, the treaties are part of the country's constitution.
Essentially, on that basis, there are only two question which can sensibly be addressed: whether we remain in the EU, or get out. There is no middle way, and there never has been.
But the Sunday Telegraph still clings, limpet-like to the unreality, sharing also the brain-cell count and IQ of this mollusc. The question now is, it says, "should we stay in the EU and renegotiate, or leave and pursue a future of bilateral relationships around the world?"
For this dismal, stupid, venal leader-writer, the "turmoil and trauma within the eurozone and what will follow" offers "the perfect opportunity to decide". And there comes his babyish idea of a referendum, giving Mr Cameron the "mandate" from the people. Thus armed, we are advised, "the Prime Minister could truly speak for Britain".
This infantile view of the world is staggering. Not least, anyone with the emotional intelligence of a two-year-old or more would instantly realise that they are onto a loser.
To approach the "colleagues" when they are embroiled in euro fallout, demanding renegotiation of the treaties, is going to get nowhere. Even if it was a starter during the good times, now and for the many months to come would be the worst of all times.
But the singular point is that to "stay in the EU and renegotiate" is not, never has been and never will be an option. We either stay in, or we leave. Only in the latter case do we then negotiate a relationship with what is left of the EU.
For all these many years, neither the Tories nor their media claque
can deal with this basic truth. Instead, despite being told again and again and again, they return to their lame stupidity, determined to the end to yearn after something that is not on offer and can never happen.
Perhaps I have hit upon the truth here. It is not intelligence, as such, that is lacking, but emotional intelligence: the complete inability to see things from outside "self", and the failure to understand that "wants" in a grown-up world cannot always be granted.
These silly, babyish little people (how right Rentoul is in his choice of epithet) need to realise that occasionally, when nanny says "no", she actually means it, because that is the way it has to be. Running to mummy or daddy isn't going to make any difference.