One of the greatest hallmarks of British culture, and one of the foundations of the rule of law, is freedom of speech. People fleeing tyranny make a beeline for Britain in part because of its long history of letting people speak their minds. From the first flowering of constitutionalism in the Magna Carta to the extension of the franchise to women, the history of these islands has been shaped by the free exchange of ideas. Without it, democracy would be far less fruitful.

This newspaper would have thought it obvious that a referendum must rely on that tradition, since we must all be fully informed about the decision ahead. Alas, others disagree. John Longworth, the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), has been suspended after telling a conference that the UK could thrive outside the EU. It is alleged that pressure to discipline him came from No 10 – something the Government denies. If it is true, this counterproductive move has turned a cautious critique of the EU into a potential cause célèbre. Boris Johnson called the suspension “deeply disappointing.”

The BCC may well have settled on a policy of neutrality, but Mr Longworth made it clear that he was speaking in a personal capacity. He explained that he believes that the EU is incapable of reform – and that the long-term risks of staying in look as great as the short-term risks of coming out. He stated that while he knows that some would prefer him to remain silent, “in all conscience, and after much consideration of the national interest, I feel it important that facts be put on the table”.

Who can possibly disagree with his right to do that? After all, no one questioned the right of the FTSE 100 chiefs to sign a letter saying that Brexit would threaten economic growth. There are good, compelling arguments on both sides of this debate, and it is important that the public gets to hear them all. That is why this newspaper has committed itself to putting all the facts in front of our readers, without bias. We will check the truth of big claims and pour cold water on baseless rhetoric. The debate should be calm and informative, not hyperbolic. But debate we must: individuals who have something to contribute, unless they are under official purdah, should feel completely free to do so. That is the mark of an open, healthy democracy. By contrast, last week the authorities in Turkey seized control of a popular newspaper associated with the opposition. Trying to stymie the flow of information is typical of authoritarians. The British should set an example by being as vibrantly liberal as possible.