The vote divided the country into two almost equal camps who have continued to bicker for 12 months with plenty of heat but no light. The government has expected us to be satisfied with empty soundbites: 'Brexit means Brexit' and 'No deal is better than a bad deal' (a general principle that does not stand up to any analysis, especially given the option of not leaving Europe).
A couple of months ago Theresa May told us that 'the country is united but Westminster is not' we would therefore have a general election. The result simply highlighted how wrong she had been. Her rhetoric did not got through to the voters (especially as she studiously avoided meeting any); the polls were as misguided as ever; Jeremy Corbyn was not 'unelectable'. The country is now as divided as ever and Westminster is more evenly balanced than it was before.
She actually had the nerve to announce after the election that 'nothing has changed' and that she would be 'getting on with the job' (repeated several times for the hard of hearing). How crass could she be? How ignorant of the message coming out of the balance of votes: that we were not all her greatest fans. She does not have the confidence of the country.
She stumbles on - because we all know that only the Tories are allowed to rule the country - with a divided Party, a divided Parliament and a divided country, while David Davis postures about 'negotiating' when he has actually had one day of talking about the cost of divorce: from a position of considerable weakness.
Of course, the outcome of the election is being interpreted in ways that bear no relation to the question on the ballot paper, just as happened with the referendum.
The referendum asked a single question: should we leave the EU. The answer was interpreted as meaning that we wanted to control migration, get rid of regulation, have freedom to do trade deals, give the NHS more money, and take back sovereignty (for whom; the people? the country? parliament? the Tory party?). It is ironic that the one explicit thing on offer - more money for the NHS - was withdrawn by the 'winning' side within 48 hours of the vote.
The same post-event interpretation happened with the general election. We are now told that we have just voted to 'reject Theresa May's Hard Brexit'. Welcome though this is, I don't remember reading that on the ballot paper. All I saw was a list of names. Is this conclusion the result of some backroom number crunching on who might and might not support her if it came to a vote?
Theresa May takes comfort from the fact that 'over 80% of people voted for a party which supported Brexit'. This is simply more spin. That was not the question on the general election ballot paper. Many voters, on both sides, will have held their noses and voted for the manifestos in the round rather than the different approaches to Brexit, especially as neither major party gave us any detail on what they propose.
What both these votes included was a common cry of protest from the dispossessed, from those who had suffered under austerity. And yes, I am probably falling into exactly the same trap as those commentators who interpreted the results. Both votes were demands for change: an end to austerity.The Tory front bench refuses, or is incapable, of understanding this as they carry on with 'business as usual' as though they had not just been given a bloody nose by the electorate. 'Nothing has changed' repeated Theresa May in case we had not heard it the first time.
For once, I agree with arch-Brexiteer Gisella Stuart when she said that the 'vacuous' referendum should never have been called. Her argument, amongst others, was that there was no one around to be accountable for the result. No one had been prepared to take ownership of all those vague promises.
At least with the election, we will know who to blame when it all goes horribly wrong. The slimmed down Queen's Speech - hardly long enough for one year's worth of work let alone two, said Jeremy Corbyn - mercifully left out some of the nastier Tory policies but was still pathetic for the first year of a government which is meant to be lasting for five. A fat chance, in my view.
There is talk of having another general election in two years' time to put the Brexit deal to the public. This will simply compound the problem. You cannot bury a question like that in with a whole raft of other policy measures and expect a clear answer. Not unless you are a spin doctor, determined to interpret any result to suit your agenda.
The Tory front bench is hardly a beacon of sanity. As one commentator pointed out, 'We now have a climate change sceptic in charge of environment, a man who hates Europe in charge of Brexit, an NHS enemy in charge of health and a PM who hates human contact (Did I mention that we have a justice secretary with an appalling voting record on LGBT rights)'. They don't often write headlines like that.
The list gets worse, not least with a Chancellor that the PM wanted to sack now throwing his weight around and (thankfully) insisting that economics should be the main consideration in the Brexit negotiations.
Andrea Leadsom demonstrated her grasp of the message from the election when she said that broadcasters (ie the BBC) 'should be a bit patriotic' and suggesting that the country needed to come together. Which bit of democracy does she not understand? Is she suggesting that people should give up their strongly-held views to support her? Why? Has she not understood that the British people do not like being told what to do, or preached at?
Before long, it will finally dawn on people that the referendum promises are undeliverable. Being British, we will not be brave enough to declare the truth and face the consequences. That might look like 'failure'. Mayhem will never allow that. Instead we will cobble up some ghastly compromise with a little bit of everything and the worst of all worlds to show that 'we have delivered what the nation wanted'.
Because of the deep political divide we are now hearing suggestions, including from the Archbishop of Canterbury, of a possible cross-party commission on Brexit. Very sensible in terms of building bridges but I would have expected a better understanding of human nature from him.
In our adversarial system of party politics, the Labour Party has no incentive to help Theresa May achieve a successful Brexit. Napoleon's adage about never interfering with your enemy while he is destroying himself, comes to mind. If Jeremy Corbyn helped out then who would take the praise? And he would have to share the blame if the process, of which he did not have control, did not work out 'brilliantly'. Neither Theresa May nor Jeremy Corbyn behave like team players.
Why would anyone work with the leader of a party they did not believe in? If there is to be joint working on Brexit then the Commission will have to be headed by someone different. Neither May nor Corbyn would be acceptable to voters on the other side.
Is it a surprise that, with a lame duck Prime Minister, no one is putting themselves forward from within the Tory party as a possible substitute. 'Boris' says someone. 'Amber' says another. 'Phil for a maximum of two years', says a third. Who would want the poisoned chalice?
We still don't know what Brexit might mean in practice as the government has been so secretive. How can we come together Andrea?
All of which shows democracy at its worst: blunt, ill-informed, open to abuse.
So how do we actually get out of the bind in which we find ourselves? A new Tory leader before the Autumn perhaps? A statesman honest and brave enough to call out Brexit for what it is? A degree of honesty and openness about the nightmare of Brexit, any flavour of which, both sides agree, is going to cause real pain in the short to medium term ... a Macron perhaps. A person without significant baggage who can cut through traditional two-party loyalties and unite people. Someone prepared to put a range of practical and achievable Brexit options to the public, to allow a real, informed debate before decision, before triggering Article 50.
No chance. This is Britain. We are the experts at democracy. The Tories rule and the rest of you do as you are told.
How different it might have been with proportional representation and years of experience of consensus-building as used by those perfidious Europeans with their weak, unstable governments. 'That jeering sound is Europe laughing at Britain' as Andrew Rawnsley's article puts it.
One thing is certain: no one wants another general election just now, no matter how much we need it. I can understand why no one wants to risk making our current woes even worse.
