THE new Brexit plan has crumpled on its first contact with reality. Faster than even we expected, Parliament has been seized by the idea that Theresa May might not be able to win a majority for a Brexit of any sort.

If nothing changes, the prime minister could break the jam in three ways: use crashing out of the European Union without a deal as a threat to get MPs to compromise; ask voters to elect a new Parliament that is up to the task; or, as the author Robert Harris says, hand “the screaming, defecating, vomiting baby back to its parents—the electorate” for a second referendum. All three have problems but, if Brexit must be unblocked, a referendum would be least bad.

Mrs May’s plan, imposed on her cabinet this month at Chequers, her official country house, set Britain on the path to a “soft” Brexit. If the EU agrees to it, the country would, in effect, stay in the single market for goods, though not services. It would pay heed to EU standards and court rulings. Until the government could devise a way of collecting tariffs without border checks, Britain would remain in a customs union.

This plan was supposed to rally Conservatives. Instead the party is at war with itself. This week hard-Brexiteers claimed to have wrecked the Chequers plan by getting Mrs May to accept amendments that contradict it. Whether they are right or not (Downing Street says not), it was a trial of strength and Mrs May lost. Alarmed Remainers then put up another amendment as a trial of strength of their own, which Mrs May won. Meanwhile, as those who think the Chequers plan is worse than what Britain has today call for a second referendum, members of the government are falling as fast as summer flies.

Chequers mate

Parliament will soon break for the holidays. If swimming, sangria and siestas fail to soothe MPs’ nerves, Mrs May will face defeat in the autumn, as EU negotiators wring out concessions that make the deal even less palatable to its critics. Without enough Tory support to get her plan through, she cannot pick up votes on the hard Brexit side without losing them from Remain, and vice versa. Labour contains plenty of MPs who support a soft Brexit, and a minority who favour a hard one. But the criticism heaped on the handful who backed Mrs May in votes this week shows how, as she totters, they will be pressed to withhold their support in order to trigger an election.

What if Mrs May tried to corral MPs by threatening them with a disastrous “no deal” exit? The prospect is ominous. New border checks would swamp customs. Trade would be hit with tariffs and non-tariff barriers. That would harm big export industries like drugs and chemicals, as well as carmakers, which send four of their every ten cars to the EU. Aeroplanes might be grounded, for lack of a safety regime. The City could not do business. Security co-operation with the EU would halt.

This is a dangerous strategy. For the threat to be effective, Mrs May must be able to convince voters that it really would inflict harm. Yet a poll this week found that 39% of them back a no-deal exit, twice as many as are for Chequers.

If the no-deal threat is reckless, what about an election? Going to the country is the time-honoured way to refresh governments. It is straightforward and relatively fast. Mrs May beat the Remainers this week by threatening a vote of confidence.

But an election might not settle the matter. When Mrs May called one last year, she was left with a minority government, fatally damaging her authority. That outcome could easily be repeated. An election would offer voters a choice between Mrs May’s warts-and-all compromise and a fantasy Labour Brexit that avoided all the hard choices the EU insists on. Polls give Labour a five-point lead. An election would mix up Brexit with everything else—health, the economy, defence and fear of the divisive leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn.

That leaves a referendum. In its favour, a new referendum is the purest way of overturning the old one or forcing Remainers to accept Brexit. But it would be hard to pull off. Unlike an election, a referendum requires legislation and could take months (see article). A simple, binary choice would be clearer than one MP’s suggestion of a three-way one. The alternatives should be between staying in the EU and the plan that emerges from negotiations with the European Commission. For this to be credible, the EU would have to agree that Brexit could be reversed. Unlike the chimeras of the first referendum campaign, the choice facing voters could at least be costed and debated.

Be in no doubt, a referendum is a desperate remedy. No matter that Brexiteers deserve most of the blame for failing to come up with a plan that could win the assent of the EU and the trust of the country. They will inevitably see a referendum as a betrayal, depicting it as a stitch-up in which Mrs May first neutered Brexit and then schemed to give Remainers a second chance. Even as a last resort, a referendum would thus leave Britain divided and unhappy. How much better if Parliament were to spare the people and make up its mind.