Parliament has voted and, in the end, there has been little dissent. MPs who believe Britain should remain in the EU have wrestled with their conscience, but a large majority accept the need to respect the result of the referendum. There is every likelihood that Theresa May will be free to trigger exit talks next month. The prime minister will find it far more challenging to achieve an agreement on the terms of the divorce - let alone the terms of Britain’s future trading relations with the EU - that MPs feel able to support at the end of the two-year process.
This is partly because of the enormous complexity of the task that lies ahead. Two years is barely enough to cover even the essentials of the divorce - whether on the contentious issue of settling Britain’s outstanding budget obligations, or on more technical matters, such as arrangements for aviation and the nuclear industry, or for continued co-operation on security or scientific research. Given the sheer volume of work required, it is very hard to imagine negotiators agreeing more than the framework of a future trade deal by the time Britain leaves.
The more fundamental problem is that both the UK government and EU member states have political priorities that outweigh their mutual interest in maintaining economic integration.
Mrs May’s chief goals - now reflected in a white paper setting out her approach to the negotiation - are to cut immigration and end the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, at the expense of single market access. She has chosen to leave the EU’s customs union in order to pursue trade deals elsewhere. She will seek the “freest and most frictionless trade possible”, but this remains no more than an aspiration, subject to negotiation.
For the EU, unity is paramount, whatever the value of UK markets to certain countries’ exporters. Commercial interests are secondary to the imperative of holding the bloc together in the face of Eurosceptic populism and the threat of US disengagement.
Moreover, while the UK needs to make swift progress towards a trade deal in order to offer businesses certainty, EU negotiators have every reason to delay - their leverage increasing as the clock ticks. Their desire to focus on the details of divorce before discussing a trade deal or a transition towards it is understandable. The upshot is that British MPs may well find themselves voting on the terms of Brexit without knowing what will follow after.
Mrs May has declared her intention to avoid such a “cliff edge”, which would be disastrous for Britain’s economy. Since businesses will start taking precautions well before the deadline, she will need to act fast. This means accepting that the only transitional arrangement Britain can realistically negotiate is an extension of the status quo - remaining in the customs union, and accepting ECJ jurisdiction, until permanent trading arrangements can be agreed and phased in.
The government has set out its negotiating strategy and must now do its best to achieve its aims. All of this depends on how the EU 27 countries choose to respond, a matter little discussed in Westminster. Mrs May asserts that the essential ingredient of success will be the “support of 65m people willing us to make it happen”.
Yet the prime minister has chosen to adopt an interpretation of the Brexit referendum vote for which there is as yet no national consensus. The mood may shift in time, but this does not obviate the need for scrutiny by parliament, right up to a vote on the final deal. At that moment, there must be a chance for meaningful debate, including alternatives to the deal on offer.