Article 50 is a rubbish piece of legislation, largely because it was written in a happier time when it was almost unimaginable any member state would want to leave the EU. It was never designed to be used.

It is legitimate to want to leave the EU, but there was no prospectus, no unified proposition that people voted for so I believe it is a very flawed mandate. I cannot fathom how any serious or responsible politician could start a time-limited process with no idea of where they want to end up – it is hubris and recklessness of a sort I never thought I’d see. But Mrs May did, because of party pressures.

Read more: Scots battle to win MPs' right to halt Brexit 'likely to succeed'

She didn’t want to include Parliament in the process, and was only forced to after the Gina Miller case. Mr Corbyn wanted it triggered even sooner. Our court case is going to clarify a simple point: can Article 50 be revoked, and on what terms?

It is clear that it can, but there is now an industrial scale spin operation in effect to try to persuade people that Brexit is somehow inevitable, even that it has already happened.

Well, it isn’t. Can MPs revoke Article 50 if it’s clear Brexit will leave us poorer and damaged? MEPs will also have a vote on the deal, what happens if we reject it and persuade others to do likewise?

Read more: Exports to EU support 40,000 jobs in and around Glasgow, as no-deal cliff-edge fears mount

It is imperative MPs and MEPs know the detailed implications of rejecting a deal. The UK Government has fought us tooth and nail, on the basis such a revocation is hypothetical so we should just be quiet, get to the back of the bus and let it get on with it.

Well, it might not be hypothetical for much longer. I’m not going to stand by and allow it to steer us on to the rock, and, in doing so, spend most of its time trying to persuade the public the rocks are out to get us. We deserve a clear-eyed, rational roadmap of how to exit from all this. We should be able to change course.