The British Raj in India was a colossal enterprise, whatever your views on its moral worth. It was set up in 1858 and ended in 1947, lasting almost one hundred years. The creation of the instruments of power and their administration were not simple. They were accompanied over time by the development of education, public health, railways, missions, industry, irrigation and other essential aspects of the colonisation.

The point of interest is the time which this took to establish. To say that it took almost one hundred years would not be an exaggeration. In effect, at the time of the rebellion and the handing back of rule, the process has continued as self rule took control, and continues to do so.

Vast undertakings take vast amounts of time at huge environmental, economic and social costs. The concept of colonisation was not new and had been exercised in many parts of Africa by the British before – so they knew the complexity involved.

Complexity always adds time to tasks whether political or such things as domestic repairs. At a certain point in home DIY for instance, you realise that you don’t know what you are doing or don’t have the skills and ring a professional trades person. The reason is that one person cannot know everything.

So when faced with the intention of a task, it is important to estimate how long it will take. Will it be completed this afternoon or in an hundred years?

Reluctantly – we should apply this understanding to the process of ‘Brexit’.

The initiation and development of the European Union goes back to the 1951 Treaty of Paris and the 1957 Treaty of Rome (although it could be argued that both Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolph Hitler and before them ‘Rome in the West‘ – sought to do the same by means of force rather than persuasion).

The institutions of the Union have themselves developed beyond their original aims of economic unity. The process to the present day has been complex and now involves over half a billion citizens.

It should not be expected to be unreasonable therefore that the process of leaving such an organisation is equally complex. What might be expected?

1. Rules of leaving as agreed when joining.

2. The Penalties for leaving as agreed when joining.

3. The Process of leaving as agreed when joining.

4. The preparation and planning, instigation, monitoring and completion of leaving.

Which leads to the question, ‘how long is this going to take?’

There appears to have been insufficient consideration during the formation of the European Union, to the process leaving the Union. It was after all, set up in the way of many religions, to attract new members. The unthinkable process of losing members is naturally inclined to become ‘unthinkable’.

The managerial notion of ‘we’ll deal with that at the time’ or ‘a dynamic assessment’ is not a good one when applied to organisations of this size and complexity.

Ordinary citizens can be forgiven for buying into such inane over simplifications as ‘Brexit means Brexit’. In the present western cultures where the idea of the expert is ridiculed and ordinary citizens believe themselves able to understand what they do not understand, a simple question like ‘do you want to leave the European Union‘ is not challenged as in itself, absurd.

Supported by the idea that ‘Britain once ruled over one quarter of the world’ – megalomania takes hold. The simpler the chants of those wishing to ignore complexity, the more supporters rally round.

If the problem was considered in the manner that civil servants are empowered to do, then almost certain more caution would be applied.

What is the aim?

What is already in place to achieve it?

What extra measures are needed to achieve it?

How long will it take to achieve it?

When will we know that the aim is accomplished?

These questions are the roots supporting the tree and like all roots, they extend in directions and distances unknown.

Suffice to say the withdrawal of any state from the European Union requires considerable planning and resources. The planning stage should start at the inception of the Union and be part of the conditions of joining – in order to simplify subsequent negotiations.

Any problems, such as politically sensitive borders, should be required to be solved prior to the start of leaving.

The process of leaving should be phased rather than all aspects negotiated and initiated ‘with immediate effect’.

The phases should be given generous time periods. The spectacle of the United Kingdom repeatedly applying for ‘extensions of time’  merely to start the withdrawal process is not something a manager of even a small company or organisation would be comfortable with.

Each phase would encompass one aspect of being a member of the European Union. In this way, proper consideration of the details of the present and proposed arrangements would be given.

Lessons should be learnt from the withdrawal of the European States from their colonies in Africa. Books could be written on this subject but in essence, there were problems created by the ‘political vacuum’ left after the transfers of power. These problems continue as symptoms at least, to the present day.

In my own way, I return to the reality that humans tend to become victims of their thoughts, rather than the masters.

It is possible to consider the absurd, and not realise that the matter is downright impossible to solve. Thinking itself is an inaccurate process, challenged continually by evidence from ‘the ground’.

So my own view of the process of leaving the European Union would be the phase each aspect and form consensus on this process based on the details of each phase.

To think that the process is simple and can be initiated at the stroke of a pen, has been done before. History as always is our teacher when this has happened.