So here we are. The government seems to be headed towards a free vote on whether the country should leave Europe with no deal. This is, in case you are wondering, an insane situation. No deal would plunge the country into a state of emergency, cause medicine and food shortages, and the government is refusing to take a position on whether or not that should happen.

Here’s the timetable. On the 12 March, MPs will vote whether or not to back Theresa May’s deal. If it is voted down, on the 13 March there will be a vote on whether or not to leave the EU with no deal – a vote which, it is reported, the Tories will not whip, which means Conservative MPs do not need to vote along the party’s line. If the outcome is not to leave the EU, on the 14 March, MPs will decide whether to extend article 50, a vote which will either end in no deal, 29 March’s default outcome, or in a lengthening of the current state of affairs, which could still end in no deal. Let’s be clear: no deal is a situation the head of the Confederation of British Industry called a “threat to global stability” on Friday, and which medics have warned will cause thousands of British people to die.

May’s manoeuvres are starting to feel like the last few moves of a chess player in check, who has given up on strategy and is now simply moving the king from one square to another until events catch up with her. The reason she is still trifling with no deal is that it is the tactic that ensures her short-term survival. Keeping it on the table is a way to bully remainer MPs into backing her deal, and the reason she may be considering a free vote on it is because she fears whipping it would cause a wave of resignations. Optimists may have hoped May would retain control of her bargaining chip, but no deal is instead starting to look horribly real.

If this seems uncharacteristically cavalier for a prime minister once thought of as sensible, you haven’t been paying attention. The truth is May’s approach to her premiership has always been driven by minute to minute survival. The mistake made by David Cameron when he first called the referendum – to prioritise party over country, current problem over long-term strategy – has echoed through everything that has followed.

We saw it in May’s infamous message that no deal was better than a bad deal (unfortunately one of the few pieces of her political messaging that cut through) – it was an attempt to shore up her position in her party. Now we see it in her speeches where, as in Grimsby, she refuses to answer questions that involve timescales much beyond a week.

The trouble is that May’s survival now depends on balancing two unfavourable outcomes against each other – no deal and extending article 50, in order to concentrate support on her deal. Her party is propped up by this fragile triad, so don’t be surprised if the Tory party exhumes it after 29 March. Should article 50 be extended, MPs will still be left fretting over choice of May’s deal or no deal (some Brexiteers are already starting to say they see it as a path towards “softened” no deal). And should we leave with no deal, MPs such as George Eustice are starting to suggest it may morph into a new transition period, in which MPs may be left trying to strike a deal. This is what happens when politics is done one day at a time.

• Martha Gill is a political journalist and former lobby correspondent