The late Malcolm Muggeridge called his memoirs Chronicles of Wasted Time. This title could work just as well as a description of Britain’s preparations for exiting the European Union. No doubt to Theresa May’s utter exasperation, the latest chronicle we hear from her unhappy cabinet is that the two customs union options that were being discussed – the customs partnership and the maximum facilitation scheme – have both been ditched. The new wheeze is a piecemeal approach, to extend some customs rules beyond the transitional period cut-off date of December 2020.

It is hard not to let out an anguished scream at this news. The first thing to be said is that the EU had already rejected the two options being contemplated, so the Brexit head-bangers have simply wasted nearly a month – of the precious seven months available to them for these negotiations – on what were non-starters from the outset.

The new proposal to extend the transitional period will be put to the EU at the June summit, but it is also likely to be flatly rejected as the EU has made it abundantly clear that any kind of cherrypicking or piecemeal approach is unacceptable.

To state the obvious to this seriously delusional cabinet, any extension will have to be on current terms – that is, abiding by all EU rules and free movement. And this is unlikely to go down well with the public because it means that, for all the progress the government claims to have made, it will have barely advanced an inch. The date we leave the EU will be pushed even further down the road: the limbo will continue. Remember the grinning Brexit secretary David Davis, alongside EU negotiator Michel Barnier at the press conference in March, with all those green areas of agreement on the slide behind them? Anyone who believed a deal was in the bag must be feeling seriously misled.

So the clock keeps ticking, and the Brextremists carry on playing out their comic opera, while life in the real world continues. The EU gave an insight into this a few days ago when it released two slides – entitled EU/UK Possible Framework for the Future Partnership Discussions – about how they saw the current state of affairs. It was the usual blur of colour codes and graphs, but the language was interesting.

They use the phrase “third country” multiple times, implying that both the European parliament and the council see negotiations advancing entirely on the basis of the UK taking on mere outside status.

They talked, too, of a “level playing field”, plainly indicating that the UK cannot achieve a deal as a third country that is equal or superior to EU membership. In this respect, regulatory alignment looks like the most realistic way forward. But how will the Brexiteers square this with their “take back control” mantra, when in effect it means losing control? For example, a security and information agreement sounds fine, but, in practice, as a third country, there are limits the EU will set on information and intelligence sharing with Britain. No one wants to put security at risk; and, equally, the EU will fear setting a dangerous precedent of offering any kind of cherrypicked, bespoke relationship for a third country.

What you can also read from the slides is that when the EU talks about its own “autonomous measures”, it is they who will decide on the way ahead. For example, in financial services the EU clearly knows Britain wants more than equivalence – a poor cousin to current passporting provisions. Equivalence is acknowledged as being less robust and less stable. But there is no appetite to give more, and France, which would benefit from taking our financial business, is already trying to make things more difficult on this issue, suggesting tightening up the rules on investment.

On this side of the Channel, we are still dealing in theory. On the other side, they are getting on with the practice. I have every sympathy with the prime minister, who has been hoping against hope that by playing for time her cabinet would eventually agree on a sensible way forward. But now it is patently clear that winning slowly is just the same as losing.

No one in full possession of their senses could say that what Britain is now doing is in the best interests of the country. The humiliating idea that we just slide from the top EU table to third country is unthinkable. Come the end of the year, when ratification must begin, we are going to be in a very awkward position.

But then, what in all honesty could anyone have expected when disloyal, mischievous men such as Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Jacob Rees-Mogg – who all appear to see themselves as May’s successor – object to every proposal put forward but never have any sensible alternative of their own?

Surely it is time we went back to the drawing board and asked the people who – ill-advisedly and inadvertently – raised the curtain on this utter farce in the first place, how they wish it to end. Let us agree to let the government see what it can rescue, then come back to us, the people, and ask us all: is this really what we want for ourselves and, more importantly, for our children?

• Gina Miller is pro-Europe campaigner and businesswoman