Reading this “from across the pond” message, be grateful that you do not have to suffer the bitter Brexit debate underway in Britain. Having lived and breathed Brexit for several years now as a political consultant, it is hard to remember life before.

To summarize, Britain currently faces three basic options. First, to remain in the European Union after a second referendum to that effect. Second, to leave under the terms of the deal that Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservative government recently secured. Third, to face the prospect of a no-deal scenario on March 29.

Those three options might not sound too complicated, but their internal workings are as complex and unpredictable as quantum mechanics.

For example, consider the three key things that changed just last week. First, May’s government was, embarrassingly, found in "contempt" of Parliament and forced into publishing the legal advice of the attorney general, the U.K.’s "top lawyer." This essentially acknowledged that the EU will have the upper hand under the prime minister’s deal.

Second, an EU legal opinion has acknowledged that we can change our mind on leaving the EU right up until the last moment, March 29. This bolsters those calling for a second referendum to prevent Brexit.

Third, Parliament approved an amendment to a bill that, in theory, gives it the power to "shape" the negotiating approach. This makes the possibility of a no-deal scenario more remote, as very few MPs want to see that happen.

The problem for anyone trying to understand Brexit at the moment is that no sooner is the ink dry than everything changes! But let’s try and figure this out.

In Parliament, there is clearly no majority supporting the prime minister’s deal. Neither is there a clear majority supporting another referendum, which would need parliamentary approval to take place. And there is certainly no majority for pursing a no-deal scenario with the EU. Parliament’s current debate in the build up to its Dec. 11 vote on the government’s deal is likely only to demonstrate how divided our politics are. If, on voting day the government somehow succeeds in gaining parliamentary assent, Brexit will be confirmed, but the U.K. will face several more years of hard negotiations on the final status of relations with the EU.

If the vote doesn’t pass, then a number of other possibilities follow. For one, the prime minister might resign or be removed by the Conservative Party. In that event it is highly likely the Conservative Party would elect a candidate who takes a harder Brexit line (the Conservative Party membership are strongly in favor of leaving the EU with fewer economic and political links post-Brexit). In that scenario a no-deal Brexit becomes much more likely, as the EU will not want to reopen negotiations. But May’s departure might also lead to a general election.

In that case how would the Conservative Party campaign? Most of its voters, members, and many of their MPs are in favor of leaving the EU with a limited future relationship. However, a majority of their MPs are in favour of remaining in the EU.

How would the Labour Party campaign? Most of its voters, members, and MPs are in favor of remaining in the EU. However, a significant minority of its voters are in favor of leaving the EU. It is also strongly rumored that the leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, and the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, are actually in favor of leaving the EU. In short, a general election probably wouldn’t clear things up at all.

What about another referendum being called? Well, it is entirely unclear how the public would vote. What’s more, there is little clarity on what should be on the referendum ballot paper. Should it be binary a la the first vote in 2016 (i.e. leave or remain in the EU)? Or should it have options? For example, should it include May’s deal on offer, or no-deal, or remain in the EU? The questions matter because these list of choices would split the leave vote and ensure a remain win.

Suffice to say the U.K. remains as divided as it has ever been, and none of the scenarios on the table would appear to offer hope of healing that division.

James Hargrave is a policy and communications director at the public affairs consultancy JBP in Westminster, London. He previously worked for the Association of Chief Police Officers and Her Majesty's Prison Service.