Though I disagree profoundly with Theresa May over the final Brexit outcome, it is not in the interests of the country that she is removed before Brexit is on a path to resolution. And it would be a further calamity — as if we needed any more — to have a Conservative Party leadership race in the middle of a continued Brexit impasse.

But if she wants to avoid something that is neither in her interests nor ours, she must not bring back the same formula that has failed three times already, even with some Labour-leaning language which will not cut any ice. Nor should she tumble us prematurely into immediate indicative votes, but instead she should take the next few weeks to prepare a government-led process for deciding the different Brexit options, providing supporting information in a structured, deliberative way.

Parliament should then vote until a decision is made, and before the summer recess. Anything else risks another failure, her defenestration and then a Tory leadership campaign which will be a competition in Brexitness, with a real possibility of a reopened negotiation, bumping up against a tight deadline and ending in no deal.

This would be the final chapter of madness in this sorry tale.

The failure of the political classes is not the one they’re accused of — namely that they have defied “the will of the people”. They haven’t delivered Brexit because Parliament hasn’t agreed the form of Brexit — hard or soft — and won’t agree to May’s blind Brexit.

In this refusal, MPs are not thwarting the will of the people. They’re doing the job they were sent to Parliament to do. They’re scrutinising the deal May negotiated with Europe and rightly saying it doesn’t work. But they’re rejecting it for different reasons.

Brexiteers reject it because it leaves us tied to Europe’s customs union. Most others reject it because it is unclear about Britain’s future relationship with Europe, and we were promised that relationship would be clear before we left. The failure of the political classes is not to have agreed a process for resolution which sets out the options on the future relationship in a structured way for decision, and which educates the country on what the different versions of Brexit mean.

May was never going to agree a Brexit outcome with Labour, but she could agree on the process with Labour. The options are: a hard Brexit, which envisages a future trading relationship like that of Europe with Canada; soft Brexit, with a relationship with the EU such as Norway’s; May’s deal (if she insists on putting it); and a no-deal Brexit.

Then — either after that decision or combined with it — Parliament should be asked whether whatever decision it has taken should be subject to a confirmatory referendum of the people. The most bizarre aspect of the whole Brexit debacle is that, unbelievably, such a procedure led by government has never happened.

The votes should be free votes because there is no Brexit consensus on either front bench. If the Prime Minister refuses this course of action and tries to put her unloved deal yet again to Parliament she will gamble with her legacy and the country’s future.

There is a further risk. That is a general election, with a Tory leader specifically seeking a mandate for a hard Brexit in circumstances where doubts about the Labour leader lead to a Conservative victory despite Brexit. Or if you’re a Tory, the risk of a Labour victory in the shadow of Brexit. It is not in the interests of the country to change Prime Minister until the future relationship is bolted down and agreed. More uncertainty and unpredictability will increase the already significant damage we have done to ourselves.

"Theresa May should not regard her legacy as doing Brexit but as resolving it"

The good employment figures of last week should not conceal our vulnerability. Companies are taking on employees rather than investing, which is why productivity is such an acute problem. Investment levels are way down. Recent job losses in the car and steel industries signal that global businesses which trade in Europe are pulling back or out of Britain. And our currency remains sharply devalued.

The global economy is staying strong and this buoys UK growth; but it is below what it would have been without Brexit. Confidence in Britain is very fragile. What has been obvious from the beginning to everyone other than the main political party leaderships is that the future relationship with Europe is a choice. And it is inescapable. Either for economic reasons we stay in the single market and customs union; or for political reasons we don’t.

Both are Brexit. But each has vastly different consequences.

The Brexit that Nigel Farage and his supporters in the Conservative Party are fighting for is Brexit at any cost; hard for sure, and if necessary no deal.

It cannot seriously be argued that June 2016 provides an unequivocal mandate for that position. Yet the public has been told repeatedly that Brexit is Brexit and that all that stands between us and doing it is a gang of recalcitrant Remoaners. This has wrought terrible havoc on the trust between politicians and people.

One massive benefit of ensuring a proper structured process for deciding the form of Brexit is that through it, MPs — and through them the people — would be obliged to face up to the reality of the choice.

They could see evidence of the effect of each option; of what, for example, no-deal Brexit really involves.

Let me be open: I also believe it will push Parliament towards sharing responsibility for the final Brexit decision with the people. But that will be because, once confronted with what each option means, it will be apparent that a single vote in June 2016, without taking account of the negotiation nightmare of the past three years, should not determine a destiny-changing decision of this magnitude.

However, it is open to Parliament to reject a referendum and simply agree a form of Brexit.

May should not regard her legacy as doing Brexit, but resolving it. If she does that — and this is the way to do it — we will have cause to be grateful.