If we must leave the EU, it is more important to get Brexit right than to get it done quickly

The Government has the right to trigger Article 50 of the European Union Treaty that would start the process of taking the UK out of the EU, and there is little point in trying to pretend otherwise.

The advice given to Theresa May is that the legal challengers attempting to force a parliamentary vote on the matter, knowing that a large majority of MPs favour remaining in the EU, are likely to fail in the Supreme Court in October.

Their efforts may, in fact, be counterproductive because they run the risk of being seen to pit the elite against a majority of the people, albeit a small majority.

They could be said to have value only in the delay they could cause in the invocation of Article 50. Ms May, however, has made it clear that the process will not start until next year anyway.

Her stance is wise. The Leave camp’s hardcore is pressing for early action, something that unites them with large parts of a European establishment they affect to despise.

However, as the legal challengers point out, the referendum was advisory. It has no legal force, and there is thus no requirement on the part of Ms May to act before she is good and ready.

The Europeans urging her to get on with it already hold nearly all the cards. Article 50 was designed with that aim in mind. The exception concerns timing, and the Prime Minister’s power over when to start the process.

Delay may not win many hearts, but that lone ace is diamond edged. It would be foolish to let go of it too early. Moreover, it would be deeply inimical to Britain’s interests.

Exiting the EU is not a simple matter of triggering Article 50 and stalking off to join Iceland in the middle of the North Atlantic. As Gus O’Donnell, the former Cabinet Secretary, has pointed out, it is a hugely complex process that will take many years to complete. Enough time for a looser grouping to emerge that could allow the UK to remain in? Probably not.

Still, Leave campaigners have only themselves to blame for their frustration at the extended timetable of Brexit. One of the great flaws in their campaign was its abject failure to settle on exactly what it would mean in practise.

Take the question of the European single market. Pulling out of it might mean the UK no longer having to accept the free movement of people, but the economic consequences would be malign, as some leave campaigners have realised.

Even if the UK economy might appear to have been more resilient than some forecasters feared – and the figures are as yet equivocal – the overwhelming consensus is that it will suffer long term detriment from the decision.

That detriment would be amplified should the UK surrender access to the single market. Access to it is viewed as critical by the overseas manufacturers that have found Britain such an attractive base. City institutions rely on its “passporting” rules that allow them to sell services across Europe.

As such, the futures of thousands of employees are staked on how the May Government handles the next steps. So is the place Britain takes in the world, yet another reason to take it slow.

There is a strong case for putting whatever emerges to another referendum, even if the last one did succeed in demonstrating the flaws inherent in such exercises in direct democracy. As Lord O’Donnell has said, both sides put wildly misleading claims before the public.

It should, however, be years before any such exercise is embarked on. Never has the proverb “act in haste, repent at leisure” been truer. It is more important not that the next steps are taken but that the right steps are taken. Governments are often criticised for dragging out tough decisions. This is one case where it would be a virtue.