The relentless attempt to portray Theresa May's Brexit plan as extreme and provocatively hostile to Europe is degenerating into a systemic lie.

Even if you agree with Sir John Major that Brexit is a "historic mistake", it is hard to imagine steadier and more cautious leaders than the Prime Minister and her Chancellor.  Both are Remainers trying to play a very difficult hand as best they can.

This campaign – for that is what it has become – inflames a false debate about Brexit. It is fanning a constitutional crisis over Scotland and Northern Ireland that might otherwise be defused.

The sloganeering is picked up and echoed by the global media, perpetuating a dark legend of nativist tribalism on these islands, and depicting Brexit as hostile to free trade and a "rules-based" global system. It is poisonous and does great damage.

Sir John Major is right that some Brexiteers would advance their cause better with "a little more charm, and a lot less cheap rhetoric". Triumphalism is never attractive – though was it not he who claimed "game, set, and match" at Maastricht in December 1991?

Yet one must rebut his insinuation that the British people are being lured into a trap of complacency by dishonest promises. For months the Cameron government used the machinery of the state to warn them of a Gothic fate if they voted "Leave" – but vote "Leave" is what they did.

The campaign against Mrs May rests on the false dichotomy of soft and hard Brexits, an issue on which I have shifted my view. As readers may know, I wanted the Norwegian option temporarily, to preserve access to the single market while we forged new trade deals. But it is not worth dying in a ditch for the European Economic Area (EEA).

Even those most hurt are not categorical about this. The British Bankers' Association (BBA) is wary of an EEA deal since it would leave the City at the mercy of a regulatory system controlled by others, and the totemic right to "passporting" is overstated. The concept is not a legal term. It is City argot.

Nor does the BBA want "equivalence", another term bandied around. "It would never do for us. It is insecure and one side can withdraw on a political whim at any time," said the BBA's chief, Anthony Browne.

What the City wants – given that Brexit itself cannot be reversed – is a bilateral deal with a dispute tribunal outside the clutches of the European Court. Broadly speaking, that is what the Government is pushing for. There is nothing reckless about it.

David Fuller's view

This is one of AE-P’s best columns and very insightful.

I certainly agree with him about Mrs May and I hope he is right about EU attitudes towards Brexit becoming more constructive for both Europe and the UK.  Obviously Europe’s elections this year will be important factors.  Generally, I think new blood is more practical than old blood in politics and I hope the roles of unelected EU bureaucrats are downsized.

Here is a PDF of AE-P’s column.