As we enter the final stages of chaotic Brexit negotiations, we can still hope for a measured outcome

It is sometimes forgotten in this debate that the UK and the EU have already concluded a deal – the one signed in Salzburg. This is one that could be put to the people now in a fresh referendum giving the electorate a Final Say

Brexit, as is distressingly obvious, has been an astonishingly uncertain, unpredictable, chaotic business. Now, as we enter an endgame and the options narrow, the coming days seem to be both full of significance and predictability. Probably.

First, the prime minister’s deal seems certain to be voted down again. There will be much attention on the scale of the loss, and how the rebels in her own party and in Labour have shifted since the last time opinion was tested. Still, it seems that her proposals will fail. They deserve to because they are at best only half a deal: there is no future draft trade treaty with the EU to pass or reject – only a political declaration. It would be irresponsible for any MP on any side of this debate to approve such an absurd proposition.

What is new, and even more assured, is that the vast majority in the Commons against a no-deal Brexit will find its voice and roar. Theresa May will go through this with her cabinet intact or not, but the possibility of a hard Brexit is about to die.

The logical conclusion will then be voted upon – an extension to Article 50. This is where the uncertainty begins afresh. The 27 states of the European Union will have to agree, and do so without reopening difficult issues such as Spain might over Gibraltar.

The EU has previously indicated that a short extension purely to pass necessary legislation would be uncontentious, as would a longer extension to secure democratic approval of a treaty. Most recently, French president Emmanuel Macron has said a reprieve would only be allowed if it was for the British to make “new choices” – an entirely new strategy.

The impending elections for the European parliament add a fresh complication to the tortuous Brexit process.

The question Ms May will need to answer: what is this new delay for? She cannot simply ask for more time for the UK to prolong its journey in ever decreasing circles. It will need to be, as President Macron indicates, new.

It is sometimes forgotten in this debate that the UK and the EU have already concluded a deal – the one signed by Ms May and the 27 states at the November summit in Salzburg. This is one that could be put to the people now in a fresh referendum – giving the electorate a Final Say. If the UK does, in due course, come up with a new strategy and a new exit treaty, preferably including the new trade deal, that too should be placed before the people for their approval.

A lengthy delay to Brexit would permit a more comprehensive set of negotiations with full parliamentary agreement at every stage. At the end of it we might have a complete package ready for parliamentary and public approval.

It would take time, but then it took time to negotiate our original entry – more than a decade between the start of talks in 1961 until the signing of the Treaty of Rome in 1972.

The British government’s policy can still be Brexit, but meantime we stay in the EU on existing terms. Life would not be intolerable. It is not the death of democracy as some claim, but merely allowing democracy the time and space to work its way through the options.

Leaving on 29 March was never on the ballot paper in 2016, and nor was any particular combination of trade and regulatory rules. We need time to rethink. Let us take it.