Following the crushing of Theresa May’s Brexit deal in the House of Commons and the same MPs’ decision to confirm her government in office, few would dispute that British politics is at an impasse.

This precondition was met with a chorus of hostile response from commentators and MPs, ranging from irrelevant gotchas on Corbyn’s past contacts with overseas militant groups to legalistic explanations as to why it is impossible for no deal to be “off the table” now.

Most of the latter arguments have focused on the fact that Brexit will happen automatically on 29 March, deal or no deal. Labour’s critics note that, unless the Commons reaches a majority for an alternative, then no deal remains the default. Only with such a majority could the PM withdraw the threat of no deal, and as there is no majority today, Corbyn’s demand is impossible for May to agree.

This view has the law on its side, but its proponents forget that law falls within the realm of politics. Corbyn’s demand for no deal to be “off the table” is not at this stage a legal demand; it is a political demand that can be met by specific assurances from the PM, which would also ease the path to parliamentary agreement on an alternative.

May could offer such assurances today. She could tell the country that – while she continues to believe that her deal represents the best means to deliver Brexit – she accepts that the House of Commons thinks differently. She could acknowledge that, above all else, most MPs want to avoid the prospect of leaving without a deal on March 29, and that avoiding this disaster is their priority, whatever they might individually prefer as an alternative.

She could then offer a commitment that the government will not stand in the way of any majority Commons proposal to prevent no deal on March 29, and that this commitment is made without preconditions. So extending or revoking Article 50 must be on the table, as must a customs union or second referendum. The details can be agreed during talks; it’s not necessary for either party to spell these out now, and if Corbyn were to reject this proposal he could fairly be criticised.

There is no legal obstacle to May making this offer, because it is a purely political commitment. If “stop no deal unconditionally” is agreed by the two main parties, the legislative mechanisms would easily win parliamentary support. The removal of the government’s red lines would have the added benefit of making the path to agreeing an alternative proposition much easier.

The case to kill no-deal Brexit now has only been strengthened by reports of Philip Hammond’s comments to UK business leaders, in which he declared that a private members’ bill from Nick Boles mandating the government to seek an Article 50 extension if no deal was agreed would likely pass the Commons and – those words again – take no deal on 29 March “off the table”.

But the reason May won’t make this commitment herself isn’t legal, it’s political: she needs to maintain the threat of a chaotic exit, even though she knows that the country is ill-prepared for it. She knows that the closer the country gets to 29 March, the more MPs might panic and support the government. She also knows that her tenure depends on the Brexit hardliners of the European Research Group, many of whom now view no deal as their preferred option, and for whom a “clean break” is such a priority that they might even be willing to bring down the government if they felt their dream was fading.

For the Conservatives, to block a no deal exit on 29 March means accepting that there is no worse outcome. And while a minority of Tories understand this, all too many think that avoiding a party split is more important. The PM is among their number, and her refusal of Corbyn’s precondition makes this abundantly clear.