Finally, Option 3 — which once seemed unthinkable — is to hold a second vote that would reconsider Brexit. In 2016, Britain voted for Brexit by a close but clear margin of 52 percent to 48 percent. But the pro-Brexit campaign was premised on lies and exaggerations about what it would mean. That’s a big reason members of Parliament can’t agree on a specific plan. A good number of them want the impossible.

I’m genuinely torn about what the least bad outcome is. I think Brexit was a big mistake. It weakens the political strength of the Western alliance that includes Britain, the European continent and the United States. And it already seems to be hurting the British economy, with Schaeffler (a car-parts company), Morgan Stanley and others already closing British offices.

But I also don’t like ignoring the results of a national referendum. If I got to choose, Parliament would hold a separate vote on each of the three major options, including hard Brexit. If none came close to a majority, the British people would vote again, on two separate questions — whether to leave the European Union and, if Brexit wins again, how to do so.

For more …

On this week’s episode of “The Argument,” my colleague Roger Cohen joined us to talk Brexit, and I thought he made a strong case for a second vote. Democracies, he said, have the right to change their mind. On the other side of the issue, Steve Hilton — a former top adviser to David Cameron, the prime minister who called the initial Brexit referendum — made the best case I’ve heard for hard Brexit. Hilton didn’t persuade me, but he did help me understand his side.

Elsewhere: The Financial Times’s Philip Stephens argues that May’s negotiating strategy has prioritized her party’s hard-liners over a compromise with Europe, setting up the country for a hard Brexit.