For decades, the UK has discriminated in its immigration policies, depending upon where the immigrant was from. It has been easier to get into the UK if you were from, say, France than if you were from, say, Somalia. We thus have no deep-seated objection to discriminating between countries.

We are now leaving the EU. There appear to be two broad schools of thought on how our post-Brexit immigration policies should work. According to one idea, we should take the opportunity of Brexit to be completely non-discriminating, treating immigrants from all countries in the same way. According to the other idea, we should continue to give favourable treatment to immigrants from the EU, just not as favourable, relative to other countries, as we have had up to now.

But why are these the only two options? Why couldn’t we have more favourable treatment for immigrants from some other countries than the EU? Folk say: “Voters want immigration from everywhere curtailed.” But that just isn’t true. Specifically, last year the Royal Commonwealth Society conducted a survey of views on whether there should be completely movement between the Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK (the so-called “Canzuk” countries). That found three to one support in the UK, among those with an opinion (58 per cent including those “unsure”) for free movement within Canzuk. (Support was, incidentally, even higher among those in the other Canzuk states: five to one in Canada, seven to one in Australia, and eight to one in New Zealand.)