What are the options on a second Brexit referendum?

A No-Deal Brexit is the worst-of-all-worlds scenario

Question: What are the options on a second Brexit referendum?
Position‹5 of 6›: Referendum between the May plan and canceling Brexit
Argument‹2 of 2: A No-Deal Brexit is the worst-of-all-worlds scenario

There is agreement on all sides that a no-deal Brexit would damage the country. Therefore, it need not be in the second referendum.

The argument

The argument concerns the design of the ballot rather than the merits of leaving. Its starting point is that the option to leave the EU without a deal should not be on the table at all, because a no-deal exit is the worst-of-all-worlds outcome: it delivers neither the continuity of remaining nor the managed transition a negotiated settlement would provide. The second part of the argument is about what including it would do to the result. If a no-deal option remains on the ballot with the option to remain in the EU, it would split the Brexiteer vote. Those who want to leave would divide between two leave options while those who want to remain would concentrate on one, and in a three-way contest decided by plurality the largest single bloc need not represent the largest body of opinion. This could result in a majority voting for Brexit in some form while the Remain option wins out of the three. That outcome would be damaging whichever side it favoured. The purpose of a second referendum is to settle a question the first left contested, and it can only do that if the result is accepted as representing what people actually chose. A result in which the winning option was opposed by most voters would undermine the legitimacy of the second referendum and leave the dispute exactly where it started. Both considerations point the same way. Because no-deal is the worst available outcome and including it would distort the vote, there should be no No-Deal option on the ballot, and the referendum should be between the May plan and cancelling Brexit.

Context

In the fiasco that is Brexit, there is only one thing that politicians on all side of the political divide agree on: that leaving the EU without a deal would be of significant detrimental effect to the country.

Premises

[P1]A no-deal exit is the worst-of-all-worlds outcome and should not be an option on a second referendum. [P2] Including no-deal alongside remain would split the Brexiteer vote, so a pro-Brexit majority could still lose to remain among three options, undermining the referendum's legitimacy. [C] Therefore the second referendum should be between the May plan and cancelling Brexit, with no No-Deal option on the ballot.

Counter-arguments

Politicians no longer agree that a no-deal departure would be the worst-case scenario. The deal The deal Theresa May bought back from Brussels was so flawed and missed so many of Brexit voters’ core concerns, that many in the Conservative party, including Jacob Rees-Mogg, would now prefer a no-deal Brexit to the one on offer in May’s deal.

Rejecting the premises

Not all politicians believe a no-deal is the worst option now. Many now believe May’s deal is. Therefore, a no-deal Brexit should be on offer in a second referendum.