Teenagers feel betrayed by their elders, some of whom have felt compelled to apologise on behalf of their generation.
Even some of the most prominent figures in the Leave campaign appear startled, even appalled, to have won. They know they'll now be expected to keep impossible promises.
The votes were still being counted when Nigel Farage admitted the pledge of £350million a week for the NHS had been "a mistake".
It was not much longer before Tory MEP and Brexit campaigner Daniel Hannan was admitting on Newsnight that Brexit would make no difference to immigration.
Those who understood the "Norway option" always knew that. Norway isn't a member of the EU, but it still pays into the Brussels coffers. And it still accepts freedom of movement in and out of the EU in exchange for access to the single market.
The millions who voted Leave may have thought they were voting for border control. Turns out that was never really on offer.
So what will Brexit mean - if it actually happens?
The Economist called it "a senseless self-inflicted blow". It predicts the loss of jobs, fall in wages and pensions, and further heavy cuts to public services, education and the NHS.
In what some Leavers may see as a silver lining, immigration may indeed fall. Not because of border controls, but because Britain will become a less attractive place to move to.
Those farmers who were so keen for us to Vote Leave will lose their subsidies so they'll have less cash to pay migrant workers. Our food will inevitably become more expensive.
Some Leavers may not mind the predicted loss of 100,000 jobs in the City. But many of those imperilled by the threat of closing the banks' open door to Europe are top Tories and their friends. So you can be pretty sure that door won't shut.
If Britain does pull out of Europe it won't happen tomorrow. It will take years of negotiations, years of damaging uncertainty. Deals will have to be brokered, laws rewritten.
Those years will provide plenty of opportunity for second thoughts. For those who wanted to give the Establishment a deserved kicking to realise they've kicked the wrong target. That it was the UK government all along, not Europe, that was responsible for the ills of austerity.
Will there be a second referendum, as millions have already demanded? Probably not. It would only inflame anti-Establishment anger further.
But countries with more experience of referendums have better rules for them. Rules which guard against catastrophic change.
In Australia - whose immigration rules the Leave campaign wanted us to copy - voting in a referendum is compulsory. Another version, backed by the petition for a second poll, says the status quo can only be changed by a 60/40 margin in a vote with at least 75 per cent turnout.
By either of those systems, the Leavers would have fallen well short last week.
Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has suggested various ways of keeping her country in Europe, as most Scots want.
One is a veto to block the Westminster government from acting on the referendum result. Another possibility - perhaps more likely - is that the United Kingdom will be split apart before any of us split from Europe.
David Cameron used to like talking about "broken Britain". Now, one way or another, it seems he's broken it.
Facebook awoke last Friday in horrified shock. At least, my Facebook did. Yours may have had an entirely different reaction to the referendum result. It may even have been as full of delight as mine was with dismay. It probably wasn't balanced between joy and gloom.
Social media reflects your own outlook back to you. Which can intensify your own feelings, whatever they are, and almost blind you to the fact that lots of other people see things differently.
Of my 384 Facebook friends just one was openly backing a Leave vote. One. And he's a Communist who expects it to trigger a revolution. Or something.
It's not that I choose my friends purely for their politics, or their attitude to Europe. It's just that birds of a feather thing.
The book Connected, by Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler, has a fascinating - and rather scary - graphic plotting the connections of a large sample of American social media users. It shows that Democrat voters have thousands of inter-related network links with other Democrat voters - but very few with Republicans, who are just as linked up among themselves.
And it made me wonder whether Facebook and the like are partly responsible for the deep divisions in our fractured society. Or whether they merely reflect animosities and incomprehension that are there anyway.