My colleagues may scoff, but I am certain of Brexit’s benefits

What makes someone a contrarian? This week I was lucky enough to be awarded a prize for being just that. As an economist, not a whistleblower or campaigner, I was surprised to win. But I came to realise that you are not born a contrarian, nor even decide to become one. Contrarianism chooses you.

A situation emerges where you have to act in a certain way, even in the face of overwhelming opposition, or you lose your bearings. This first happened for me while

I was one of several academics advising Margaret Thatcher on her monetarist policies.

When, in 1981, 364 economists wrote to The Times attacking her budget, I was asked to write a piece in reply. By no particular design, I found myself in effect attacking my whole profession, disagreeing with their Keynesian diagnosis that Mrs Thatcher’s economic policy threatened Britain’s “social and political stability”. Happily enough, the economy began to grow almost immediately after the budget was released, and her policies laid the foundations for a Britain reformed to generate growth and full employment.

Economists were much less united over the issues of joining the European Exchange Rate Mechanism and the euro. But, to my great astonishment, in the case of Brexit, the profession near universally aligned itself with Remain, again giving me little choice but to be in active opposition.

With a small but distinguished band of my peers, we gathered under the banner Economists for Brexit to fight Project Fear, the massive campaign orchestrated by the Treasury under George Osborne to brand Brexit as something no “expert” could endorse.

There are various technical reasons for my disagreements with the overwhelming majority of my colleagues on Brexit. The dominant opinion is essentially that the economy will suffer unless we protect our existing trade relationships with Europe. But as with 1981, I am convinced that we will look back incredulously on their views, as the economic benefits of embracing global free trade outside the European Union’s tariff walls become clear.

Contrarianism is not easy, of course. You doubt yourself, question your conclusions, and ask yourself whether you are a bit mad to be acting as you are. I have managed to address these doubts, and to check on my models and their undeniable flaws, by asking myself what the classical wisdom within my field would have been. Just as it would have supported Mrs Thatcher’s policies, so it would have backed free trade for Britain outside the EU.

You also face derision from colleagues, and finding a new job can prove difficult. So being a contrarian may not be a good idea if you are young, especially in academia. The truth is that, if you want to get on, you should not really get into fights, other than the mutually congratulatory ones that take place within learned journals.

Having said that, I find that my peers are a pleasant lot who acknowledge the need for open debate. Brexit has produced quite a lot of bad temper ( just as monetarism did); I am sure it is just a passing phase, as it was then.

But even if I continue to be derided as a head-banging maverick, I remain the happiest of men, because I will have helped to initiate our exciting future outside the European Union. read more at telegraph.co.uk/opinion