I'm struggling to see how a logical, unbiased argument can be made for including Remain but leaving out a No Deal transition.
Because in 2016 the people who voted leave voted to leave with a deal. (in fact at the time - no one was talking about leaving the single market). Therefore there is no mandate for no deal.
The fact that parliament and many people didn't like the deal they got is a consequence of the stupidity of voting for something that is not defined. But that is nobody's problem but their's. They voted on a mystery box - the thing inside was the W.A.
Considering how many people dislike it - it is fair to say - OK, we'll let you choose whether you wanted this thing you voted for (when you didn't know what it was) or if you want to keep the status quo after all.
There was a poll a couple of pages back (I think it was still this thread) that showed that no deal is actually in third position now - polling at around 19%. The top two choices were W.A and remain. It makes perfect sense to give a referendum between the top two choices.
It makes no sense to bring in the third choice option once the top option (remain - 43% I think) has been knocked out. That's just holding back the least popular option until it has a chance to win by default - neither fair nor democratic.
Then there is the fact that a parliamentary democracy is not supposed to be a populist vehicle to deliver on every whim of the people. It is supposed to act in the best interests of the nation. It is not anti democratic to tell people that in the event of no deal people will die - starting with people whose access to life saving medication will be compromised. Nor is it antidemocratic for a parliamentary democracy to say therefore they will not do this thing. No matter how many people want it (only 19% so - no mandate anyway).
There is precedent for such a thing happening (though obviously on no where near as big a scale). Had the legislation to ban the death penalty and the legislation to legalise abortion been put to the people in a referendum back in the 60s - they wouldn't have passed. The govt did it anyway - because they believed it was the right thing to do. It was unpopular - but it is not the govts job to give us what we say we want, it is to act in the best interest of the country.
Remain is the other option in a logical non biased way not because it is the single most popular option (it is) but because it is the status quo. You don't ask people 'change or other change' - you ask people 'change or the same.' If you ask change or other change you disenfranchise everyone who wants things to stay the same. If you offer W.A vs remain then everyone who still wants hard brexit still has a way of making that happen if enough people agree with them. No one has been disenfranchised.
Jacob Rees Mogg said in 2011:
We could have two referendums. As it happens it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed
I don't think, back then, he was suggesting that we take time to renegotiate a deal and then offer the people a choice of accepting it or chucking it out of the window and winging the whole thing. He meant 'do you want the deal or the status quo?'
It is not the remainer argument that has failed to be consistent. It is the leaver argument that has been continually moving the goalposts since 2016. They always insist that they always wanted what they want right now ... and then they shift the goalposts again. Pandering to their (current) whim is not logical, consistent or democratic. It is, however, dangerous. That whim will change again.
in 2016 we were asked do you want to leave (undefined) or remain. People gambled - and it turns out they didn't like what they got. It is fair to ask - OK, this is the result of your gamble, do you want it - or do you want to keep things as they were? It is not fair to ask - OK this is the result of your gamble - do you want it or shall we gamble some more with even less chance of success?
Remain is the other option because it is the status quo.
On the other hand there is no argument for allowing no deal on the ballot beyond 'we want it.'.. Really, what is any other reason or argument for it? And actually only 19% of people want it so 'we want it' is not an accurate depiction of the mood of the vast majority of the electorate.
If leavers feel betrayed - then that is one of the ugly side effects of their having been betrayed - by the leavers in parliament and Nigel Farage. They lied in the campaign, they didn't put any work into getting a deal because it was much harder than they thought, they whipped up populist sentiment and used dog whistle politics in order to disguise how badly they were failing, and then they voted down the exit mechanism.
If leavers are not intelligent enough to understand where the betrayal actually lies - then that is no good reason to give them what they say they want or not work to prevent disaster. A confirmatory vote remain vs W.A does work towards what they actually voted for - brexit with a deal - they need to realise that, and if they can't it still isn't anyone's problem but theirs.
I have written before that 'no deal' is not a permanent state of affairs. There will eventually have to be some kind of arrangement. Will they just accept those terms no matter what? Or will they ultimately still feel betrayed? And how does a govt democratically go about pursuing a deal with Europe when the people have voted for 'no deal' - and the only reason they offered that was too soothe this sense of betrayal? They will have a mandate to leave us in a deal-less limbo to the end of eternity. They will have tied their own hands for a fiction that cannot be sustained.
If people genuinely want a hardest of hard brexits - a GNU offering a confirmatory vote does not prevent that. Hard brexit is not a fiction - unlike no deal - it can be sustained. If leavers want a hard brexit they vote for the WA and then in the following GE they vote tory/BXP. If enough people want it then they will get it. That is democracy. But they will get it without the chaos of no deal (which even if they desperately want will not last forever so it is not worth voting on - but again 19%)
If leavers cannot see that a GNU/confirmatory vote is not cheating them out of the hardest of hard brexits then again - that is simply because they have failed to understand (again). And we shouldn't not do something sensible, which avoids disaster, is democratic and is logically consistent just because some members of the public don't understand it.
The only way they will not get this hard brexit is if a majority of people vote in a way to stop it - wither remain or for softer brexit parties in a GE. But that would not be anti-democratic and the leavers would not have been betrayed
You're not 'betrayed' just because your viewpoint is a minority (19%). People disagreeing and choosing something else is not 'betrayal' - and once more, if they don't understand that that is no one's problem but their own and we do not have to pander to it
So - that's the logical and consistent argument for including remain (status quo) and not no deal (unsustainable fiction not offered at the time of voting in 2016).
What is the argument for including no deal? 'we want it' is not good enough - nor is it actually representative.
If the argument is 'remain was rejected in 2016' - then the answer to that isn't to offer no deal, the answer to that is for parliament to pass the W.A and give us brexit.