Of course, the Brexit negotiations will encompass more than trade. Also contentious will be the direct fiscal cost of exit and the status of EU residents in the UK (as well as of UK residents in the EU). But trade is central and overriding, despite the EU’s attempt to prioritise the amounts the UK supposedly owes the EU. It is possible that differences over the cost of exit are irreconcilable, with numbers such as €100 billion likely to be rejected out of hand by the British government.  If so, the dispute will surely be sent to arbitration and trade matters must then come to the fore.

The early signs from the EU side are dispiriting, and could even be described as small-minded and vindictive. Particularly unlovely was the remark by the Austrian Chancellor, Christian Kern, in February that the negotiations “must ensure Britain is made worse-off when it leaves the trading bloc” since any other outcome would be “capitulation”. The EU has no grounds for protesting about the UK becoming like most of the world’s countries. If the European Commission and other EU institutions find nothing objectionable about the roughly 160 of the world’s nations that are not EU members, they should find nothing objectionable when the UK increases that number to roughly 161.

When the Brexit negotiations start in earnest later this summer, Britain must strike the right note. Yes, bad, dirty money does matter, and over-the-top demands from Brussels must be resisted. But one way of setting the pace, and turning the tables on mean-spirited bureaucrats, would be to make clear that a drive for global free trade is Britain’s eventual aim. It would be good if the EU could join us, but if not (and if they must keep 74 per cent tariffs on milk and the 55 per cent on canned peaches) that is their misfortune. By pressing the ideal of global free trade in the Brexit negotiations, the UK can take the high ground and offer an inspiring example to other countries. The free trade position must not be compromised by tit-for-tat haggling or special bilateral deals.

The hope must be that Britain and the EU achieve an amicable break-up. But unnecessary tension and misdirected bitterness are possible, and Jean-Claude Juncker’s bad start is unfortunate. The EU must understand that the UK does have a fall-back position of no deal at all. We can walk away, and allow the Bretton Woods institutions (and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) to set the context for the EU-UK relationship from April 2019. An important virtue of the unilateral free trade option is that it fits hand in glove with the “no deal is better than a bad deal” principle. The EU should welcome imports from the UK when we restore full political independence. All being well, trade volumes will not just stay as they are, but grow strongly. A friendly departure settlement would of course be best. But American and Chinese companies export on a massive scale into the European single market from outside the EU without a special deal. Surely British companies can do the same when the UK is also outside the EU, deal or no deal.