Nothing one reads or hears on Brexit from the British media can be trusted. This is because the subject is so contentious that the media feel themselves impelled to choose sides and, as a consequence, their coverage - in terms of what they cover and how they present it - reflects their own prejudices.
Even a reputable British newspaper like the Guardian - famous for its independence and regard for the facts - has succumbed, and has allowed its commitment to the "European" cause to colour its treatment of the Brexit issue to the extent that it has become a veritable cheerleader for anti-Brexit sentiment.
There has been a barrage from the British media about the supposedly disastrous consequences of Brexit, and particularly of a "no deal" Brexit. What are we, at 19,000km from the action, to make of it?
Like the British, we have been conditioned to believe that, because the exit process has been difficult (and has been made so by the EU), the desired outcome of that process is a dreadful mistake. But we should look dispassionately at the facts. We should recognise that the 2016 referendum produced a narrow but decisive verdict from the British people on their 40 year-long experience of EU membership. They decided that EU membership should end.
The Leavers seem to have been primarily motivated by a determination to re-establish British sovereignty - that is, control over their own government and laws, and borders - and to end the hefty annual membership fee paid into EU coffers as the price of supposed economic benefits that have never materialised. The economic outcomes of membership have in fact been disastrous - a slow rate of growth, perennial trade deficits, the decimation of manufacturing industry, the loss of jobs, and higher food prices.
Even the most fervent of anti-Brexiteers would accept this analysis as to what lay behind the Leave vote. But, in the hope of getting that decision reversed, they say that to leave would produce even worse outcomes, and would be disastrous for trade and for the British economy as a whole.
But how realistic are these fears and warnings? Even from the other side of the world, we can answer that question by using a little common sense.
First, if trade with the EU matters as much as its proponents say it does, what is to stop it from continuing post-Brexit if that is what both parties want?
The British will no doubt want it to continue, but so too will the EU countries. The cross-Channel trade provides a hugely valuable market for their goods (they enjoy a considerable trade surplus with the UK) and they also rely greatly on the irreplaceable expertise provided in return by the British financial services industry in particular.
It would make no sense for either party to turn their backs on such a mutually beneficial relationship - and the future terms of that relationship will no doubt be the focus of inevitable post-Brexit negotiations. There is no reason those negotiations should prove any more problematic than any other trade arrangement that the EU chooses to enter with a third party.
From the British viewpoint, there is the added benefit that the UK would, post-Brexit, be free to enter bilateral trade relations with countries - the US, Commonwealth members like Australia, New Zealand and India, and many others - with whom the UK is not at present, as an EU member, free to deal.
This would give the British greater access to cheaper and more efficiently produced food and raw materials and would also provide new and valuable markets for British manufacturers. It is hard to see why this prospect should not be beneficial to the British economy.
Contrary to the Jeremiahs, trade opportunities could, post Brexit, actually enlarge. We in New Zealand should note, in passing, that we too might benefit from this new trading situation - Jacinda Ardern has already established British interest in a free-trade deal with us post-Brexit.
Neither we nor the British should listen to the propagandists who continually cry havoc, and should exercise our own judgment on the probable outcomes of Brexit - they will most likely not be nearly as dire as the propagandists maintain.
Bryan Gould is an ex-British MP and Waikato University vice-chancellor