The first anniversary of the Brexit result passed largely unnoticed last week. The nation still reeling from the Grenfell Tower disaster, the spate of terror attacks, and a decidedly unsettling general election, there was precious little time to reflect on what has happened since the great British public delivered their EU referendum decision.

Certainly, the year since the referendum has not gone well. Dithering over the triggering of Article 50, followed by a wholly unnecessary and (from prime minister Theresa May's point of view) counter-productive general election campaign, has left us no further down the road to a meaningful Brexit than we were on the morning after the referendum.

Finally, this week, a catastrophically damaged (and shell-shocked looking) Theresa May turned up in Brussels to begin negotiations, appearing weak and marginalised - both at home and in the corridors of EU power.

None of this bodes well for our leaving of the EU cleanly.

Arrogant technocrats such as Jean-Claude Juncker can barely disguise their ill-bred glee at the humiliation of Mrs May, and EU thoughts are clearly turning to the possibility of our returning sheepishly to the fold.

Certainly, new kid on the bloc Europhile President Macron of France would like to see that happen. But Britain needs to stand firm on Brexit.

And we need a concerted, cross-party push to deliver not a "hard" nor a "soft" Brexit, but a clean Brexit.

Even the most steadfast and truculent Remainers are now, a year on, resigned to the fact that the will of the people as of June 23, 2016 must be carried out.

The lofty integrationists of the EU might take a different view on this, but that is because they are still in a state of denial that anyone could be stupid enough to wish to leave their club.

Well, we do wish to leave - and we shall. With both main parties committed to Brexit, it would surely seem sensible to have both with seats at the table when it comes to the discussions.

The people having spoken, it should be the responsibility of our main parties to ensure Brexit goes ahead in the best interests of the country.

Jeremy Corbyn (who claimed at Glastonbury that he will be prime minister within six months) has long been known for his Eurosceptic stance - right up until he was forced to support the Remain campaign, albeit in a decidedly half-hearted way.

So why doesn't he tell his new army of young supporters how positive Brexit can be for them? How forward-looking we as a nation can be when we are freed from the bureaucratic shackles of the EU? How truly globalised we can be trading freely with the 160-odd other nations beyond the EU's soon-to-be 27?

And yet we are hearing nothing. Of course, having a prime minister who herself was on the side of Remain does not enhance our bargaining position in Brussels. If there should be a new Tory leader sooner rather than later, it is axiomatic that it absolutely must be a Brexiteer who steps up to the plate: someone who actually believes in the direction our country has chosen to go.

Britain has always been unique in Europe, not least because of our relative geographic position. Contrary to growing popular belief, we are in a strong financial position - and post-Brexit there is no reason why that strength can't continue to grow.

Of course, our financial position would be stronger if the government were not apparently about to embark on a rowing back of its attempts to balance the books (we are still borrowing billions and billions too much as a nation); but such a knee-jerk reaction to the shock (for the Tories) election result was dispiritingly inevitable.

No sensible government could compete with the fantasyland giveaways promised by Labour in their manifesto. So why bother? Instead of now considering tax rises and an easing of "austerity", the Conservative government should have the courage of its convictions (and conviction politics is what is sorely needed from them now) and remain resolutely on course for a Brexit based on encouraging enterprise, based on looking outwards to the rest of the world and based on allowing people to keep more of the money they earn. Let's just hope we have more to celebrate on the second anniversary of the Brexit vote than we did on the first.

AS gentle, Sunday evening viewing goes, Antiques Roadshow is in a league of its own. Nice people queuing up in usually beautiful surroundings eagerly hoping to be told that the painting they found in Auntie Doreen's attic and which looks likes it was daubed by a six-year-old after a Capri-Sun and blue Smarties binge is in fact an early David Hockney worth £50,000.

Along, I am sure, with millions of others, I can't help feeling just a bit pleased when the rather smug person who's convinced their chair is a Hepplewhite is told it is in fact a 20th century copy and virtually worthless - and they go through the "I'm not bothered, it's priceless to me" gritted-teeth routine.

This week's show came from Holker Hall; and the main gem it threw up was, appropriately, some valuable signed first editions of Beatrix Potter stories. Good stuff, but I was more interested in scanning the screen for familiar faces, which all adds to the Antiques Roadshow experience when it comes from a nearby venue.

My tally was disappointingly low, with just two people spotted I knew - Ian and Andrea from Ulverston.

Clearly, I don't know many people with undiscovered Van Goghs or Chippendales lurking in their lofts. Thank goodness - I'd be far too envious to be remotely pleased for them if they had.

The BBC's politics editor Laura Kuenssberg has been the subject of some vitriol this week, with newspapers' letters pages (and, of course, online forums) full of criticism about her "snarling" and "taunting" interviewing style.

The talented Ms Kuenssberg is, apparently, too confrontational and aggressive in the way she interviews politicians - and she stands accused of trying to make them appear foolish and incompetent.

She has also been accused of bias against both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn - which surely suggest even-handedness, rather than bias.

All of which seems rather odd to me. I'm quite a fan of Ms Kuenssberg - she's absolutely on top of her subject, she's well-informed and she's articulate.

She also doesn't feel the need constantly to interrupt her subjects when they are trying to answer her. And she asks her questions directly and without stuttering waffle.

Frankly, she leaves a lot her television colleagues (such as Channel 4's Jon Snow and Krishnan Guru-Murthi) standing.

It is the job of a senior political editor to ask awkward and at times uncomfortable questions of the people who would lead us. Journalists aren't there to give politicians an easy ride, but to put them and their policies to the test.

In that, Laura Kuennsberg is doing sterling service. If Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn find her questions difficult well, tough.