For the first time since 1992 and the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, I am filled with some enthusiasm for our future relationship with our European neighbours.

Theresa May’s almost universally accepted Mansion House speech set out a blueprint for leaving the EU and trading with Europe that is both realistic and optimistic.

There will be no requirement for a second referendum as proposed by your Remain correspondent Michael Thompson, as making a few allowances for the passage of time and intervening changes, this bespoke model mirrored many aspects of the European Economic Community we entered in 1973, which was ratified by 67.2 per cent of those who voted in the referendum of 1975 and few of us wanted to change.

The Mansion House philosophy is about mutually beneficial trade and co-operation. The EU has declined in importance in the world economy for many years and it makes sense to increase rather than penalise trade between our nations.

To reject the terms Theresa May outlined would in essence be to renege on the original deal that the UK electorate signed up to with the nine member states of the EEC in 1973.

Such rejection would confirm beyond doubt that the relentless and in my opinion naïve obsession of some European politicians with building a bureaucracy they refer to as the United States of Europe has nothing to do with the interests of the people of the EU but would be an act of personal political ambition and vanity.

In 1975, there was no European Parliament, no hint of freedom of movement of people, very little jurisdiction by the European Court of Justice, no Euro or suggestion of common defence or fiscal policies. We need a European President like we would need a hole in the head.

We entered the EEC to enhance trade and co-operation and to build on the successes of such icons as Concorde.

When the Euro brought Greece to its knees and the EU failed to respond to an obviously defective monetary system, I became completely disenfranchised from that political organisation.

At the current time we must reinforce Nato not weaken it by forming a competing European Army.

I therefore caution Messrs Bernier, Juncker, Tusk and Co to think carefully if they would reject the proposals in the Mansion House speech, as in so doing they would expose the EU as having significantly changed its ambition since our accession without seeking our electoral consent. I believe their European dream is flawed and exists only as it has not been subjected to the test of democratic accountability.

Finally, I believe Boris is right; we need have no fear of a clean Brexit; however the Mansion House speech encourages me to believe that we will find an equitable economic deal that benefits all parties, is possible and compellingly right.

Richard Hosking

Ugborough