Yet this is the bank which reported record losses of €6.7 billion for the year just past. And while this type of scaremongering wouldn't be acceptable even from a profitable bank, from such an egregious loss-maker it carries not an iota of credibility.

Mr Folkerts-Landau is German-born, and despite presiding over a record loss-making enterprise, he feels entitled to stand aside from the failure of his own business to acquaint us with his views on the EU - almost certainly with the intention of influencing our referendum. 

Accordingly, he tells us that the geopolitical impact of a Brexit has become a "forgotten dimension" of the EU debate. "Europe", he says, "will become far less important and its impact on foreign policy, within the UN and global decision making, will be diminished".

Warming to his theme, he argues that without the UK, Europe could no longer lay claim to the centre of global capitalism: "It would lose London and the Anglo-Saxon connection," and the power dynamics within the EU would also become fundamentally "disturbed" as the Franco-German axis would dominate the continent. "The checks and balances imparted by the UK will be gone", he says.

It is unlikely that Mr Folkerts-Landau fully understands the dynamics of the British referendum, if he thinks this going to have a significant effect on the vote. If anything, it might actually incentivise more people to vote for "leave", and that surely cannot be his intention.

However, these are interesting observations and have some value if they are used positively. Essentially, that this man is saying that the UK leaving could to damage to the entire EU project. But, if any potential damage can be mitigated by UK actions then this gives us a powerful hand in the exit negotiations.

Specifically, it need not be assumed that the UK will necessarily be hostile to the EU in its dealing with the UN and other decision-making bodies. And if the UK is able to make it quite clear that, post-Brexit, we intend to cooperate in areas of mutual interest, there is every incentive for the EU to negotiate a balanced deal that minimises the harm to either side.

The crucial point here, though, is that Mr Folkerts-Landau is not referring to trade issues. Thus, even if were stalled on trade, we would still have considerable leverage. And taking this in the round, there is room for considering side deals on foreign policy, in exchange for flexibility on the part of the "colleagues".

Thus, while the new article is most probably meant to dissuade people from supporting Brexit, in many ways it points up opportunities which, if taken, could make the process of leaving the EU that little bit easier. There is, it would appear, in the dark scenario offered by Mr Folkerts-Landau, some room for optimism.