A UK Government report last year reiterated the view that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is committed to “promoting democracy” and “good governance” overseas.

Noble words, no doubt, and a welcome departure from previous Tory administrations where cynical realpolitik was the guiding principle of foreign policy. Alas, support for Saudi Arabia and other autocracies perhaps undermines the lofty rhetoric.

However, take the policy intention at face value and imagine the FCO staging a seminar tomorrow on exporting the Westminster brand of democracy across the globe.

In explaining the last three years, civil servants would have to run through how Theresa May, in compounding the follies of her hapless predecessor, had committed the most appalling series of blunders of any Prime Minister in a century.

She triggered the Brexit process without having any idea of what she wanted to achieve. She set “red lines” that were entirely aimed at her own MPs, many of whom are so zealous that they would never support her. Her eventual deal was easily rejected three times by Parliament. And the same legislature voted down all other alternatives.

The FCO seminar would have to conclude that the UK had gone from being viewed as a beacon of democracy (of sorts) to a laughing stock. Westminster proceedings are getting more coverage around the world than ever before, but not for positive reasons. MPs should dread the next poll on faith in our democratic institutions.

But the humiliation of the House of Commons as an institution should not result in us shying away from asking the most fundamental question - what is the solution to this crisis?

In a repeat of last week’s debacle, MPs will tomorrow vote on a raft of alternatives to the May deal which, if passed, could form the basis of a radically different offer to European negotiators. Other options, which won’t be voted on, are also in the mix.

In what will inevitably dominate the news cycles next week, May is expected to bring back her discredited Withdrawal Agreement again. It is an understandable tactic in theory, but in practice the pro-Remain Speaker of the House will be unlikely to accede to Government demands. John Bercow blocked a third “meaningful" vote on the grounds that little had changed from the second snub; it seems improbable he would jettison his own ruling.

A “confirmatory vote”, which was narrowly rejected last week, will probably come back but the plan is problematic on a number of fronts. Hatched by two Labour MPs from very different constituencies, the idea is simple: May’s deal is pitted against Remain in a public vote, the result of which would be legally binding.

However, such a move would be unfair to Leave voters. May’s deal has been ridiculed and is tarnished. Half the pro-Brexit side would probably sit out a referendum if her deal was on the ballot. For any second referendum to pass the fairness test (a mighty challenge, even in less trying circumstances), voters would need to be presented with a Brexit option backed by Leavers. The current "deal", by contrast, is lying in the gutter, promoted by a Prime Minister who looks like a zombie in The Walking Dead.

Labour and the SNP have suggested that a general election would be an appropriate response to this catastrophe. I can see why political parties, eyeing electoral gain, would find this option attractive, but it's difficult to argue that going back to the voters will somehow break the deadlock and produce a workable solution. Parliament is divided because the country is divided.

Consider a new Tory leader, elected on a platform of ripping up the May plan and starting negotiations again with the EU, winning a majority at the polls. It is conceivable, at a push, to imagine a comfortable majority of Tory MPs endorsing a harder form of Brexit, but it almost impossible to envisage the EU signing up to this fantasy. May’s deal is the hardest form of Brexit the EU will agree to.

A Corbyn premiership would run in to even bigger problems. Given the Labour leader’s euro-scepticism, he would contest the next election on a commitment to deliver a “Labour” Brexit, which would be softer than the May plan. But just as the right-wing European Research Group has tortured May, so too would Corbyn’s colleagues try to sabotage his blueprint. Most Labour MPs, like the party membership, are staunchly pro-Remain and would revolt if it appeared that the leadership was attempting to implement Brexit.

The so-called “soft” Brexit options have the best chance of securing MP backing this week. Tory veteran Ken Clarke’s customs union plan fell by a handful of votes. His colleague Nick Boles’ suggestion of a “Common Market 2.0” also looks like a strong runner, particularly if the SNP back it on tactical grounds. It is not beyond the wit of man to imagine a form of words being devised that commands a parliamentary majority.

However, a “soft” Brexit – loosely based on Norway’s close relationship with the EU – looks like the worst of all worlds. Norway is not a member of the EU, but must abide by freedom of movement and is also bound by single market rules that it has little say over. For want of a better cliche, the UK would become a rule-taker, not a rule-maker. It would be the opposite of taking back control and further damage the reputation of Westminster.

The solution lies in understanding the root of the current problem. In a fatal mistake in 2017, May (with Corbyn’s assistance) invoked the Article 50 process on the UK’s withdrawal, thus setting a deadline on the EU and MPs reaching an agreement. She did so without having an indication of the type of deal that could get passed by both sides. We are now in a position of begging the EU for mercy.

Two options present themselves. The first, in recognition that Parliament cannot agree on a way forward, is to seek a lengthy extension from the EU, probably in the region of 12 months. Earlier this year, the Herald on Sunday published impassioned pleas from range of figures across civic Scotland who backed an extension earlier this year, and they were right to do so. However, it contains the drawback of setting another artificial deadline.

A better solution would be to revoke Article 50, an option that is on the table thanks to a court case pursued by Scottish parliamentarians. This would not be about stopping Brexit, but would instead give MPs and the public a chance to breathe without the stress of 24/7 melodrama and stories about medicine shortages. More than 17 million people voted Leave in 2016; they did not vote to Leave on March 29, or April 12. A date was not on the ballot.

READ MORE: Herald on Sunday tells MPs to CHOOSE SOMETHING as Brexit teeters on brink

Halting the process would allow May to stand down and for the the Tories to elect a successor in a contest that would not have to be rushed. It could result in a general election and a change of Government. It would allow a national conversation to take place on the type of Brexit the country wants, and whether it should be put to a referendum. It would take no deal off the table. It is time to stop the clock.

Even then, revocation would require our politicians to stop acting in their own narrow party interests, and start recognising that the future of country is at stake. The present conditions are ripe for extremism ... and Westminster should be aware of that, and act accordingly.