The Brexit debate deserves so much better than Economists for Free Trade’s latest offering. Their paper, championed by Jacob Rees-Mogg, tries to make the case for leaving the EU without a deal and trading under World Trade Organization rules.

"Patrick Minford is such a marginal view even within academia. His views are Economics equivalent of ‘flat earth.’"

Their forecast of income gains from Brexit contrasts with all other economic analysis, write Thomas Sampson, Swati Dhingra, Gianmarco Ottaviano and John Van Reenen.

The sole economic modelling exercise showing material benefits for the UK from Brexit has been debunked as “doubly misleading”, further demolishing the argument that for Britain “no deal would be better than a bad deal” when it comes to the EU.

Jacob Rees-Mogg has put his name to an “Economists for Free Trade” (EfT) report claiming a no-deal Brexit would bring a £1.1 trillion boost to the British economy over the next 15 years. This is pure fantasy. The overwhelming consensus amongst economists is that quitting the EU with no deal would be a disaster on a truly magnificent scale.

This week on the Brexit podcast for the reality-based community… The “staggering economic illiteracy” of Brexit cheerleader Prof Patrick Minford. Will civil servants come to Britain’s rescue? Why the European Free Trade Association Court is “less boring than it sounds”.

The possibility of the UK leaving the European Union (EU) has generated an unusual degree of consensus among economists. Acrimony and rancour surrounded debates around austerity and joining the euro, but analysis from the Bank of England to the OECD to academia has all concluded that Brexit would make us economically worse off.

Jacob Rees-Mogg says the benefits of leaving the EU may not be felt for 50 years – and he’s not the only Eurosceptic asking the people of Britain to wait patiently.