It is the 1950's. There is a Soviet Bloc to the East, a new China in the Far East, a sub Continent coming to terms with the meaning of self rule, a Middle East beginning to realise that with oil they have a thumb on the throat of Europe and a new United Nations that is neither united nor a nationality.
The USA now a dominant world power has authority over a Europe which cannot make up its mind about what exactly it is after the Second World War and which has a US controlled NATO for defence purposes. A lot of politicians in Europe do not like this and want to be together for economic as well as defence purposes.
And at the LSE I am asked by my tutor to knock out piece of around 12,000 words on Sovereignty to test my understanding of the term, but I have a slight problem.
My understanding is coloured by having read Top Secret files on what happens next if the Soviet's turn ugly and what the military think Europe is for practical purposes, like World War Three.
They say as you get older and wiser you should learn when to leave things alone. But the trouble with being older is that you do not. Old dogs like their old bones.
The LSE politics blog has an article about sovereignty which is not long but close reading. It argues that while we use the word a lot probably most of us have a shaky understanding of it at best. I would add especially politicians.
And especially those politicians sitting in meetings dreaming up new international organisations for this and that.