At a private dinner in the City last month Lord (Nigel) Lawson, a chancellor of the exchequer during the Thatcher years, explained why he wanted Theresa May to win a huge majority.

Brexit — which he enthusiastically supports — will deliver a significant short-term hit to the economy, he said.

This will cause a voter backlash, and make the Government unpopular.

Thus, May needed a big majority this time so she could afford to lose 50 seats next time out — which we then thought would be 2022 — and still have a workable majority for a further term.

Well we now know that there is no majority at all and therefore the logic of what he said is that we should now prepare for a government of Jeremy Corbyn. On the one hand if there is a near-term election, perhaps after a new Conservative leader has been voted in, the odds are Labour will win because the momentum is with Corbyn. Having mobilised the younger voters, he will be able to rely on them for one more push. Note, too, that a poll found that of those voting Labour last week, 43% would like to prevent Brexit happening at all.

If, alternatively, the election is delayed until after Brexit, the economic pain which Lord Lawson predicts will provoke a swing against the Government as living standards drop and voters come to think they were duped. Given where we are now even a tiny move would be enough for Corbyn and Labour to win.

Interestingly the pages of economic and political analysis which have sought to predict what will happen as a result of Thursday’s vote have all been about May’s future and the Brexit talks but no one has thought through what happens the day after tomorrow — as Lord Lawson was clearly trying to do a few weeks ago.

All the attention has been on whether the loss of a majority means that May or her successor will have to adopt a softer stance. Business needs to wake up. The bigger challenge is not dealing with the consequences of Brexit, but dealing with the Left-wing government which will follow in its wake.

The truth is that, hard or soft, the economy is in trouble. Our recent growth rate is already among the worst in Europe. The exit process will sink the economy regardless of the outcome of the talks. The uncertainty created by two years of negotiation with the anxiety increasing with each successive month will see to that. These effects are already visible if you know where to look. As the CBI’s Carolyn Fairbairn wrote in yesterday’s Financial Times: “There is no question this is beginning to bite; a gradual silent drip, drip, drip of lost investment and missed opportunity.”

This view was echoed by Graham Bishop, an authority and consultant on European affairs, who says in an article on his website that “the hard-line Brexiteers still do not recognise the economic harm they have already inflicted on Britain — with more developing rapidly beneath the surface.”

Seizing the post-election mood, the other big employers’ organisation, the EEF manufaturers’ organisation, called yesterday for a rethink on Brexit with access to the single market and customs union on the table. It talked about growing alarm in the business community, as the implications of turning away from Europe become clearer.

But Bishop in his blog delivers a harsh reality check on how much attitudes would need to change to deliver the sensible outcome they want, and this implies that those clutching at the comfort blanket of a so-called soft Brexit are liable to be disappointed.

“Staying in the customs union means the mythical idea of negotiating hosts of free-trade deals around the world would have to be formally buried,” he wrote. “Remaining in the single market means that its rules would continue to be enforced by the European Court of Justice. If they are not, then by definition it would not be ‘single’. The hard-line Brexiteers will never accept bending the knee to the ECJ. It also means the four freedoms would remain — including the totemic concept of free movement.

“Joining Efta (if they will have us) requires accepting both the above — with the added disadvantage for the UK of simply taking whatever rules the EU 27 care to agree in the future.”

There is the further obstacle that these are not options for us to choose. The negotiation is not a menu where we can select what we want. The EU will decide what we get (if anything) because we have no leverage. Triggering Article 50 means we leave in two years, with nothing if that is how it turns out. We hold no cards and in trying to pretend otherwise we are fooling no one but ourselves.

That means business has to get off the fence. There is no soft Brexit deal which will be better than what we have already inside the EU.

They should start being honest and explicit, loudly and in public about the pain even a soft Brexit will cause. They should spell out how 61 of Britain’s towns and cities do the bulk of their trade with Europe, the only exception being Hull. They should say that free movement is not just one of the pillars of the single market, it is a description of the nature of modern business.

The hard-line Brexiteers who pull the Prime Minister’s strings will never accept a soft deal so they have to be confronted. It will be painful, but the Tory party has split over trade twice in the past 200 years, so is overdue for another bust-up.

And as for thwarting “the will of the people” as expressed in the referendum, consider this: by 2019 some two million people from the 2016 electorate will have died and been replaced by a similar number of 18 to 20-year-olds. Given no change in the declared voting preferences of the old and the young that would give a majority for Remain.

Corbyn needs to think about that, given it is the young who are propelling him towards power.