No. The EU makes it easy to leave. The Treaty contains a leaving mechanism, which a member state can invoke and implement without any agreement from the Union or from other member states.
It’s hard to leave in a way that is advantageous to the departing member state, but that’s not because of impediments in the leaving process. It’s because membership is very advantageous, and leaving inherently involves sacrificing the advantages of membership.
Again, I’d disagree. The EU is not making an Awful Example of the UK. The UK is making an Awful Example of itself. Its engagement with the process of leaving has, from go to woe, been an absolute shambles. Every possible advantage or opportunity has been squandered; every possible error has been made. And these have all been unforced errors on the part of the UK. The EU is frankly astonished by how badly the UK has handled this.
It’s a little of both: the UK is making an Awful Example of itself and the EU is happy to let it do it as an example to others. The EU could probably ease the departure but they have no reason to be helpful; conversely, they could make things harder but they know perfectly well they don’t need to.
And if you haven’t a clear consensus view of what sort of future relationship you want, and the most ardent supporters of those who want to leave imagined that somehow the existing membership with opt-outs from some key elements could be replaced by non-membership with opt-ins for some more elements. Cherry-picking was never on the agenda.
And if the governing party is badly split internally on the very issue whether the EU is a good thing.
And if the PM who caused the mess just buggers off, leaving other people to pick up the pieces, forcing a leadership contest on extremely short notice.
And if in that leadership contest, the potential leadership candidates who supported “Leave” knife each other.
And if the governing party elects as leader and PM a proponent of “Stay”, and then give her the job of negotiating “Leave”.