Whatever the merits or demerits of Brexit there is no way the current timetable can deliver it.

If we start from the (a bit questionable) premise that our leaders (and our civil servants) are not stupid or malignant then the failure to conclude a credible Brexit deal can only be attributable to the fact that it cannot be done within the currently planned timescale.

No member nation of the EU has ever wanted to leave before so there was no precedent guiding us.The triggering of the process by giving the Article 50 notification was not based on any realistic assessment of how long it would take. It was solely driven by domestic politics. 

The Article 50 notification was premature and unnecessarily so. It has meant that negotiations about the terms of Brexit have been rushed, superficial and incomplete. The probability of a “No Deal” Brexit is at least in part driven by a drive towards an artificial deadline. 

Part of the problem of this fatal haste has been the failure to get “buy in” even in the Conservative Party, let alone in the country at large. We are no nearer knowing the terms of Brexit and this means that everything is theoretically still up for debate. 

“Chequers” attempted to cut through the confusion but as a credible proposal it lasted about 24 hours. It heightened the divisions in the Conservatives - best illustrated by  the departures of two of May’s three key Brexit ministers. “Shambles” doesn’t begin to describe it.

At the heart of this is the fact that continued membership of the Single Market is essential. The Swiss (constitutionally an Uber-Independent nation) know this as do the Norwegians. Britain would be the only significant European country outside the Single Market. 

But membership of the Single Market requires continued acceptance of the “Four Freedoms” - including Freedom of Movement. The “Leave” campaign revolved around two interrelated things; (1) Stopping migration of Europeans to Britain (2) “Restoring” Britain’s Sovereignty. 

So the U.K. negotiators cannot do a deal that gives us a “Norway” type arrangement and the Single Market, despite being essential,  is not on offer. Theoretically membership of the “Customs Union” could still be negotiated, but this would be hugely complex and take time. 

Whilst the higher level arrangements as to how the U.K. would operate outside the Single Market and the Customs Union (including how this would work in the island of Ireland) remain unsettled and unclear at the lower level the same largely applies. 

The terms of UK’s trade with its 27 EU partner countries is covered by the EU Treaties of which it is a signatory. This would lapse and separate arrangements would have to be  negotiated with all of them. This has not even started yet. 

And Britain would also give up the established trade arrangements with over 50 non EU countries that it enjoys as a result of negotiations that have been concluded between them and the EU.That’s another fifty deals that would have to be done and where the work hasn’t begun. 

All the above surely has to mean that aside from the continuing debate about the merits of Brexit the current timetable is wholly unrealistic and to stick with it would cause chaos. Article 50 has to be withdrawn, or at least indefinitely extended.