How do we escape from the nightmarish Brexit saga and reach a sensible solution speedily? Theresa May’s deal does not “ get on with it” as she claims. In the vague political declaration about the future relationship there are many more volcanoes ready to erupt after next March. They will be erupting for years to come. A no-deal Brexit would lead to more immediate explosions with dire long-term consequences. Neither route gives voters greater control of their lives or binds those who have been “left behind”, two themes of the referendum. Both guarantee that there will be no moving on from Brexit.

Frictionless unicorns, ‘max fac’ and cake: your guide to Brexit lingo | Hannah Jane Parkinson Read more

The third option of a people’s vote is incomparably more preferable, in that it could lead to a sensible solution. But this Brexit route is also long and thorny. I went on the packed People’s Vote march in London last month and spoke at the equivalent rally in Edinburgh during the festival in August. The case is powerful and the campaign has been projected brilliantly. The argument is making more headway than many imagined possible even a few months ago. Yet the very success of the campaign highlights its flaw. The focus is inevitably on the case for a referendum rather than the arguments for remaining in the EU. The case for remain is more powerful than ever after more than two years of unresolved madness.

Indeed, since 2016 we have learned that of all the EU countries the UK is least suited to leave because of Ireland and other matters. While the case for staying in is much clearer now than in 2016, the arguments for a referendum become more blurred. The most basic obstacle is reaching any consensus on the options to be proposed on the ballot paper. Some in the People’s Vote campaign suggest the choice should be between May’s deal and remain as they are the only substantial clearly realised choices available. But a significant number of Brexiteer MPs will vote against May’s deal in the Commons. Obviously they do not support remain. They and the voters they represent would be disenfranchised in such a referendum. The hardline Brexiteers find the responsibilities of government impossibly awkward, daunted by compromise, complexity and detail. In contrast they are near geniuses at developing “betrayal narratives” from the back benches. A referendum with two choices that they opposed would not take a genius to fuel wild disillusionment.

Play Video 1:09 Philip Hammond says economy will be 'a little bit smaller' under all Brexit scenarios – video

In his recent interview with Andrew Marr, Tony Blair was forensic in his demolition of May’s deal and in his arguments about why he supports remain. When he moved on to the case for the people’s vote he was far less clear. Blair suggested there were two options. One was “Boris Johnson’s version of Brexit” versus remain. The other was a three-choice referendum, those two plus May’s deal. His preference was for the first, remain versus a Boris Johnson Brexit. But Johnson’s version of Brexit has not been negotiated. He seeks some form of “Canada-plus-plus-plus” , a free trade agreement with substantial extras that the EU would almost certainly not agree to. In terms of the people’s vote this raises two issues. Does the campaign take place on the assumption that if Johnson’s Brexit version won the negotiation would follow. In which case what happens if the EU rejects large chunks of Johnson’s version, which they would? The referendum would be similar to 2016 as the precise form Brexit might take would be unclear. But if a referendum is delayed until Johnson or his equivalent negotiates his Brexit version the UK could be waiting for years.

The issue of what is put on the ballot paper would take some time to resolve with any legitimising consensus. In the meantime the case for remain would not get much of a look-in. The legitimacy of the referendum would be the main topics of debate before and probably during the campaign.

This has started to happen already. The remainers in the Commons tend to ask May for a people’s vote rather than challenging her with the case for staying in. May, who struggles with questions of substance about the benefits of continued EU membership, deals with these interventions with ease. She says there was a people’s vote in 2016 and she is implementing it. There is an obvious rejoinder. That referendum was an absurd way of addressing a matter of such multilayered complexity. Yet proposing another referendum legitimises the original one as a method of addressing these policy areas.

The “Brexit betrayal” narrative is unavoidable whatever route is taken. Brexiteers will claim betrayal if May’s deal somehow or other wins the day. When chaos follows a no deal they will argue from the safety of the back benches that they would have prepared for such an outcome in ways that would have magically avoided the economy-wrecking disruption. Given that disillusionment is built into Brexit there is a clearer way forward than holding a referendum. Parliament could decide. In the paralysis that follows the defeat of May’s deal a brave and wise parliament would vote to revoke article 50 and stop Brexit.

Trump’s Brexit bomb is a brutal reminder that May’s work has barely started | Gaby Hinsliff Read more

MPs who know that continued EU membership is by far the best solution are understandably fearful of such a move because it so overtly counters the 2016 referendum. But a parliamentary solution has the big advantage of ending the immediate Brexit pain swiftly. Given that the legitimacy of a referendum would also be challenged ferociously, the protective shield for MPs is not that much greater and the pain would last much longer. Some MPs are also exploring the possibility of a “Norway-plus” option, including membership of the customs union and single market. The option has many merits but as Brexiteers would argue that is a betrayal too, the UK might as well remain rule-makers in the EU rather than rule-takers just outside.

If they voted to revoke article 50, MPs could sincerely point to the two years of costly, sweaty, energy-sapping around-the-clock attempts to deliver Brexit as proof they gave it an almighty go. Some voters will be apoplectic but they will fume in every scenario. At least an assumption of parliamentary responsibility would solve the thorny questions immediately. If parliament rejects May’s deal and no deal, which it should, parliament has a duty to sort it out and could do so by Christmas. No doubt MPs would be vilified, as they will be unfairly whatever happens.

Still, think about it, no raging debate about what the question should be in a referendum, no more backstops, no threat to the soft border, no cliff’s edge after another row about how long the transition should last and what should follow, no uncertainty about future trading arrangements, no choice between being a rule-taker rather than a rule-maker, the stage cleared for a focus on bigger challenges such as the NHS, hopeless trains and the rest. Such a clear and transparent assertion of representative democracy almost certainly will not happen but it is the only way to “get on with it”.

• Steve Richards is a political columnist and broadcaster