As the clock ticks inexorably towards 29 March 2019, nobody right now has the faintest idea what's going to happen on that day. The Labour Party wants to be in charge of proceedings, and currently hopes to be so by means of a Motion of No Confidence in the Government.
But what's it going to do if it wins that motion and any prospective general election? If it wants us the people of the UK to vote for it in such an election, what do we think it should do with that mandate?
Should the Labour Party simply press ahead with implementing the result of the 2016 referendum as soon as is practical come what may? Or should it shelve the matter of leaving the EU entirely, whether for the foreseeable future, or to pause the process in order to give the country opportunity to reflect and return to the matter in the future? Should it instead put the matter to the people again in a third referendum?
To all intents and purposes, with the claims being made that North Korea now has nuclear weapons small enough to mount in ICBMs capable of hitting the USA mainland, that they're talking about launching some form of strike on the US island territory of Guam seemingly just for the hell of it, it's clear that the North Korean regime isn't playing by the usual conventions of statecraft of acting rationally according to stimulus and incentivisation from allies and enemies. And similarly, with Donald Trump's runaway mouth and fingers, and other people within his administration who really would see instigating global conflict as a religious obligation in order to bring about the Second Coming, it's clear something needs to be done by somebody in order to mitigate the effects on innocent people of what seems to be inevitable further escalation, and indeed do something to de-escalate the situation before The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists meet in November to decide whether to move the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight - assuming we even make it to November.
But what to do? Is an armed conflict really inevitable, so the least bad option might well be for the USA to strike first to try to limit the escalation? Is an armed conflict still inevitable, so the least bad option might be for the USA to preserve the moral high ground by deferring a strike to a retaliatory one, even though the likely level of overall destruction might be higher? I've always said the least stable form of government is dictatorship, because if the inner circle take out the leader, everybody gets instant promotion. Would the least bad option to be to continue to pursue diplomatic pressure in the hope that other elements within the regime realise the insanity of the current situation and stage a coup?