If true, would this not point towards avoiding such unions in the future?
We should always remember why it was made, coming out of two horrible wars and after hundreds of years of smaller wars - not (only) to make life a little easier, not to redistribute money and not to boost economies, but to make wars impossible as much as can be done by interweaving their economies and citizens.
In regards to this point, project EU has been highly successful. We're now far enough removed from these wars and most witnesses dead that we have to actively work on keeping the memory and reason alive.
Our thoughts and dreams seem to become smaller somehow, lately. I hope it will not take another massive disaster to change that.
Also they did not have to lodge the article 50 letter when they did, they could have spent years preparing and figuring out what it is exactly they want to accomplish.
Finally the EU gave an extension twice now for them to figure out what they want, instead of doing that UK govt doubled down on stupid.
Seeing all that happen, I'm convinced we should abolish voting. Instead of voting for prime minister, etc. they should be chosen at random from the general population the same way we do jury duty. Monte Carlo government. It can't be any worse than the current government and since it's random selection you can't have the process corrupted.
For comedy reasons, Article 50 was actually written for the EU, by Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, a cross bench peer in the UK's House of Lords. This was after the UK insisted the EU adopt something draconian, to dissuade new members from screwing the EU around.
To me it could just as well point towards avoiding leaving such unions. Or towards not doing it without a greater majority / more planning / more time / etc.