This is not overtly to block the move to exit but rather to recognise, along with the more responsible elements of the Leave campaign, that there are huge complexities with an exit and these need to be properly researched, assessed and managed before, not after, we slap in our letter of resignation.
The hardest part for our remaining friends in Europe might well be to understand how the UK constitution reacts to something like this.
Here there is a great deal of uncertainty. We joined what was then called the European Economic Community by Act of Parliament in 1971.
To leave ought therefore to involve the repeal of that Act, and that ought to be a properly considered, transparent, deliberate and conscious decision of Parliament.
Given that — noting the positions of Scotland and Northern Ireland — leaving would most likely lead to the break-up of the UK, the concept has surely to be exposed to the full rigour of Parliamentary process, and debated and voted upon in the proper way like any other huge decision concerning the future of the nation.
It is not something just to drift into, to allow to happen by accident.
However, Article 50 — the giving of notice of intent to leave the EU — if invoked, potentially robs Parliament of the opportunity to express its view and to intervene when there is still time to affect the outcome.
This is because the Article starts the clock running so that the UK will cease to be a member after two years.
That is regardless of whether or not there is any agreed deal in place to govern what comes after — and regardless of whether Parliament has agreed or not that we should leave.
Cambridge professor Simon Deakin, one of the country’s leading experts on this aspect of European and British law, reckons that if the Government were to invoke Article 50 on the back of the referendum result without asking Parliament first, it would be unconstitutional — were it not for the fact that we do not have a written constitution.
It would fundamentally undermine the sovereignty of Parliament. It would set an appalling precedent — after that any future demagogue leader could overrule Parliament and get what they wanted by going direct to the people. Other countries did that in the Thirties and it did not end well.
That does raise the interesting question of whether a prime minster who tried to make such a move would be allowed to get away with it.
There are already lawyers lined up to challenge such a decision and request a judicial review of its legality.
There is even a question of whether the prime minister of the day could be impeached if he or she persisted.
One imagines, however, that Boris Johnson would quite enjoy that as the ultimate bit of showmanship with which to crown his career — particularly if it were followed by incarceration in the Tower.
That is perhaps too fanciful but the key message is this is about politics now, not economics or financial markets —and the whole point of politics is to find a way to reconcile irreconcilable differences.
So, provided we take Merkel’s advice and stay cool, there is still a chance that something worthwhile can be salvaged.
