We discovered on Saturday that the government’s Brexit deal is inferior to Theresa May’s rejected deal in three respects: it divides the union by giving Northern Ireland a softer Brexit than the rest of the UK; it relegates our rightfully high environmental and labour standards from legal certainty to mere aspiration; and it only postpones the risk of a no-deal Brexit to the end of the transition period next year.

Within days, we could find ourselves in any one of a variety of positions. We could find Boris Johnson’s deal in law, most likely with an extension beyond 31 October; there could be no agreed deal after the second reading of the withdrawal bill, and no extension to the Brexit process granted by the European Union; there could be agreement to have a confirmatory Final Say referendum; or – as most pundits now predict – we could have general election before Christmas.

But the very fact that all such options are still in play at this late stage is testimony to the total breakdown in trust and compromise in our political system. This breakdown stands in marked contrast to the flexible, yet decisive, way in which the 27 nations of the EU negotiated with Boris Johnson. True, they had the whip hand and got most of what they wanted, but the ability to triangulate between different positions – the essence of doing politics – has become a continental European skill that the British now clearly lack.

At the heart of the present impasse is the classic “prisoners’ dilemma”. Those who saw the film A Beautiful Mind will remember how the Nobel Prize-winning economist, John Nash, developed game theory, of which this thought experiment is an example.

Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful Show all 16 1 /16 Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful The Supreme Court has ruled against Boris Johnson by declaring his government unlawfully shut down parliament for five weeks EPA Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful Lady Hale handed down the historic verdict, hailed by opposition MPs and anti-Brexit campaigners. She said all 11 judges were unanimous in deciding that the case is “justiciable”, so the government loses that part of the argument. “The court is bound to conclude therefore that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions.” EPA/Supreme Court Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful Gina Miller and her team react outside the Supreme Court are the verdict. She said: “Today is not a win for any individual or cause. It is a win for Parliamentary sovereignty, the separation of powers and independence of our British courts. Crucially, today’s ruling confirms that we are a nation governed by the rule of law, laws that everyone, even the Prime Minister, are subject to." PA Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful A person dressed as a caricature of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson in a prison uniform stands outside the Supreme Court AP Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn called for Mr Johnson to “consider his position” following the landmark decision, while Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson said he was “not fit to be prime minister” Getty Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful Scottish National Party (SNP) Westminster leader Ian Blackford raises his arms as he comes outside. He said: "This is an absolutely stunning judgement by the Supreme Court today." He went on to say, "we all want to get back to work, and quite frankly, on the back of this, Boris Johnson must resign immediately." AFP/Getty Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful Crowds outside celebrated the verdict AP Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful Delegates at the Labour party conference applaud after hearing the news AFP/Getty Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful Speaker John Bercow said MPs must now “convene without delay” and confirmed the Commons would return at 11.30am on Wednesday AFP/Getty Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful Gina Miller said: "“As a result of this judgment, Parliament is open, it was never prorogued. I urge MPs to get back to work immediately.” AP Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful MPs Anna Soubry, Liz Saville Roberts and Caroline Lucas, together with SNP leader Ian Blackford, react. Green MP Caroline Lucas has said the Supreme Court’s decision is “just the start” Reuters Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful “The UK deserves a Prime Minister and a Government who act with honesty, integrity and in a manner consistent with our constitution, at all times." AFP/Getty Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful Anti-Brexit supporters react as they gather outside the Supreme Court in London, Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2019 as it makes it's decision on the legality of Prime Minister Boris Johnson's five-week suspension of Parliament. (AP Photo/Frank Augstein) Frank Augstein AP Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful The SNP’s Joanna Cherry QC says: “Boris Johnson’s position is untenable and he should have the guts to resign.” PA Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful epa07865617 Protesters react outside the Supreme Court after the result of a hearing on the prorogation of parliament, in London, Britain, 19 September 2019. The Supreme Court ruled that the suspension of parliament by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson was not lawful. EPA/NEIL HALL NEIL HALL EPA Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful Tom Tugendhat MP returned to the chamber in the House of Commons within minutes of the Supreme Court ruling PA

The leaders of two gangs – let’s call them the Brexiteers and the Remainers – are in prison in separate cells, charged with causing a serious punch-up. They know that if they shook hands and reached a compromise (say, a Brexit which keeps the main economic features of the EU but leaves the political) they would get away with a warning and please the neutrals. But they don’t trust the other side and don’t want to risk accusations of “betraying” their own. If Prisoner A, the Brexiteer, sticks to his claim that the other side is solely to blame, and the judge believes him, then he gets off scot-free (a “clean break” Brexit, in this case) but he runs the risk of going down for a very long time (no Brexit at all). Prisoner B has the reverse dilemma: he could stop Brexit altogether, but risks a very hard Brexit (a life sentence) in the process of trying.

The likely outcome of intransigence is that the judge will send both of them down: a bad deal that satisfies nobody.

Though ideas such as retaining a customs union will be floated again, compromise – however desirable at this point – seems unlikely. There will be a battle of political wills, demanding guile and stamina. The first battle is over timetables; the longer the process, the greater the likelihood of scrutiny throwing up problems to be addressed by amendments.

These may be sufficiently numerous and radical that the government no longer has a bill it can sell to its own uncomfortable alliance of the European Research Group, mainstream Tories and Labour Brexiteers. It could then try to trigger a general election. And if the threat of no deal has been neutered by an extension, the opposition is likely to agree to one – even if the outcome is a lottery and may solve nothing.

The bill will also give an opportunity for (mostly) Remainers to secure agreement for a Final Say referendum. The Liberal Democrats and I will be among the supporters of that amendment, but it will only win if there are others who can be persuaded that it is the least worst of several bad options and, as such, the best way out of the Brexit nightmare.

What is absolutely certain is that Brexit will not “get done” any time soon. Even if the bill and the final deal are approved by parliament, there will be another crisis after next summer as the end of the transition period looms in December 2020. With the strong possibility that there will be no sign of a new trade agreement with the EU by then, all the arguments about “clean breaks” and “crashing out” will happen all over again. And again.

Support free-thinking journalism and attend Independent events

There is now a present danger that such a divided country could become split over this single issue indefinitely.

It is perhaps fitting that Brexit has been stuck on the Irish border problem, and the partition that caused it a century ago. A hundred years from now, I fear that arguments over Brexit will still be raging. Unless, somehow, the prisoners learn to compromise.