Brexit demands leadership, not just management

This same "out-of-touch" viewpoint was boosted by the MPs expenses scandal of a decade ago. It now affects other major institutions in British society, including the courts, the police, business and the media. Since the great recession, it has contributed to a general trust deficit which casts a shadow at times over almost every foundational British institution.

Arguably, the EU did not help itself win favour prior to (and following) the Brexit vote. In recent decades, the EU has time and again over-stepped the mark where national sensibilities – if not sovereignty – are concerned. Its top layer has behaved with an attitude of exclusion.

Some of its most outspoken leaders have pushed not only an openly federalist agenda. This despite the fact that federalism was never a major plank of the Union for which member states signed up.

"Ever closer union" has long featured in EU and EEC documents, but has never been clearly defined in any official way. Yet from their personal pronouncements, we can see that some career EU leaders want it to mean "European empire".

Going into the referendum, many Europhiles within the UK – myself included – considered ever closer union to be a good thing if it meant a close-knit trading group of interdependent nation-states. But we were less enthusiastic about an ever closer political union, with largely unelected bureaucrats at its apex.

The EU has sometimes brazenly ignored the results of national referenda on new treaties. It has clumsily sidestepped rejection using technicalities. The EU has had its fair share of successes – most notably in promoting internal travel, dialogue, trade, security and above all peace. These should not be underappreciated – especially the last.

Most recently, though, it has shown arrogance in its initial handling of the migration question and in its efforts to solve common problems through elitist back-channel tactics. Angela Merkel's negotiations with Turkey, for example, were well intentioned, but they were perceived by some citizens in the EU as unrepresentative and unsupportable.

During the UK's referendum, this perceived arrogance made it hard for some friends of the EU to make a case in its defence.

If Britain's domestic politicos are to navigate the choppy waters of Brexit, they will need to shape negotiation positions that are inclusive in tone and intent, while not vague in terms of strategic goals.

They will need to promote friendship with the EU and an ongoing commitment to the common good for Europe as a whole, refusing to see negotiation as a zero-sum, winner-takes-all game.

They must do this, though, without backing down on bottom-line negotiating positions. There must be none of Barack Obama's talk of "red-lines", which turn out to be nothing more than pink smudges.

In the immediate wake of the Brexit vote, I reflected that the British spirit of pluck in times of deep uncertainty has become legendary. The UK's ability to produce highly creative entrepreneurs, inventors and disruptive thinkers has earned kudos the world over. It's high time those qualities were embodied in and projected by the nation's leaders.

Our government will need to promote unity, but it cannot please everyone – and it shouldn't waste time trying. Mrs. May shows signs of being up to the task. Let's hope her Cabinet, Party and Parliamentary colleagues will also rise to the occasion and inspire us, as one diverse yet cohesive nation, to do the same.