LyrArc Article Gist
The Economist magazine looks at the mess that Brexit has become and reflects on what this means. The first explanation is that Britons always loathed the evolution of the common market into the European Union. The second that Brexit was simply a result of a simmering civil war between the successful metropolitan  liberal parts of Britain and the provincial conservative parts of Britain. A third one is seen as equally plausible that the country's leadership has failed, that its model of leadership is coming apart. 

It says the problem is the chumocracy with David Cameron made the poor decision to go for a referendum on the EU without thinking this through carefully, taking risks with the future of Britain for the sake of narrow party interests. 51% and you are out of the EU was never a fair option when major decisions of such type are handled with great care, even confronted with less momentous decisions other countries use two stage votes or call for super majorities. Basically the whole referendum was flawed to begin with and the people making the decision gambled with the future of Britain and the British economy. 

The Economist magazine says the current candidates for Tory leadership, are all inadequate, one even suggesting that Britain should not balk at leaving the EU with no deal because it would create a temporary shortage of Mars bars.

It looks at the leaders class in Britain as says it preserves many of the failures of the old establishment by being introverted and self-serving. It sees less expertise and more bluff in their backgrounds in public relations, journalism (Cameron, Johnson) and lighter experience (May as analyst), and sees a singular lack of self restraint because it believes it comes out merit based selection compared to the old establishment. What the Economist magazine sees is meritocracy transformed into crony capitalism for Blair in Labour party and Cameron, Osborne in the Conservative Party. One of the problems it says is the erosion of other ways to enter the leadership ranks from a range of places- business, unions, local government, working class talent, and other places- something that existed in the early postwar years to the sixties. Gradually a shift is taking place already to create new options and broaden the places from which leaders can emerge for broader more effective selection.