There was nothing surprising in the warning from the International Monetary Fund that the economic consequences for Britain of leaving the EU would land somewhere along a spectrum from bad to very, very bad. Nor in the premeditated hysteria of Boris Johnson, Conservative Brexiter, who accused the EU of sharing the hegemonic ambitions of Adolf Hitler.
Political discourse in the advanced democracies has become a contest between a weary establishment that, for all its manifest failings, clings to a framework of truth and self-styled insurgents seeking to tap the anxieties and anger of disenchanted citizens. The referendum debate in Britain is proving no exception. Many of the statements of the Leave side have been shown to be palpably false - not least its central claim about the size of Britain’s payments to the EU budget. The Outs are impervious to inconvenient facts.
The pro-European camp has won hands-down the economic argument of the campaign. The IMF was only the latest of many independent institutions, national and international, to declare that Britain would be poorer for breaking with the EU. Brexit would hit investment, jobs and living standards. The response of the Leave side has been to allege some vast international conspiracy to trick the British electorate. Even by the standards of Donald Trump’s tactics in the US presidential primaries, this is cynicism gone mad.
Impartial assessments of Britain’s capacity to pursue its international political and security interests echo the economic judgment. Eurosceptic delusions that an “Anglosphere” would better promote UK influence have been shattered by the views of allies.
Best friends from Washington to Wellington, Ottawa to Canberra and Tokyo to Delhi are unanimous that their relationships are tied to Britain’s place in Europe. Nato, the ultimate guarantor of British security, thinks the country would be disarming itself by quitting.
True, Mr Trump thinks Britain would be fine outside the EU. But then the Republican presumptive nominee also considers it a good idea to build a wall along the US-Mexican border and bar Muslims from entering the US. The Leavers could also claim the solid, if unstated, support of Russia’s Vladimir Putin but, strangely enough, they have been reluctant to call the Kremlin in aid.
My guess is that the course of the campaign has not surprised the Outs. Making an economic case for Brexit was always going to be impossible, while the notion that Britain would be a bigger global player if it cut itself loose from its own continent was fanciful even for fantasists. Winning the policy arguments was never part of the game plan. The goal was always to harness the myriad concerns and grievances of voters - about immigration, stagnant incomes, austerity and the rest - to a revolt against Brussels.
The Out camp spans political divides. Mr Johnson, whose overriding ambition is to replace David Cameron as Conservative prime minister, has linked arms on the right with Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence party, and with George Galloway, who heads the hard-left Respect party.
Beyond Mr Johnson’s imitation of Mr Trump, the Tory side of the campaign can be roughly described as nostalgic English nationalism. In its appeal to white working-class voters the anti- immigrant Ukip dances along the line between nationalism and xenophobia - and often crosses it. Mr Galloway rages against big business. So does Mr Johnson, who alleges that Mr Cameron has done dirty deals with corporate bosses to secure their support.
Missing from the Leave case is a description of what “out” would mean for economic, political and security relationships. This is partly because the Outs are themselves divided and partly because they do not want to be drawn into debates that would expose the absence of viable alternatives. Pressed for answers, they strike the playground pose of children through the ages - hands covering ears as they solemnly intone “I can’t hear you”.
The Brexiters have bet the bank on the triumph of emotion over reason. The tropes about a nation overrun by immigrants and in the grip of corrupt elites and corporate fat cats will be familiar to anyone who has followed Mr Trump’s progress.
The Republican candidate says his pugnacious isolationism would make America great again. The EU Outs promise to “take back control”. But slamming the door against the world, is not exactly a prospectus. Above all they agree these populists are “against” things - openness, globalisation, immigration, change. They thrive on anger.
This marks out the essential difference between the Remain and Leave camps. Pro-Europeans have no illusions about the shortcomings of the EU, but see it as the best available vehicle for Britain to safeguard its security and prosperity in an age when global power no longer belongs to the west. The Outs pretend that all would be well if only Britain could make its own decisions.
The irony is that Britain does make its own decisions. Look back over past decades and every choice of significance - about the size of the state, the structure of the economy, taxation and welfare, or war and peace - has been made by ministers and MPs. At this point, though, the hands of Leavers reach for their ears.
