It is hardly a secret that she was supporting the remain side prior to the referendum; but it will be good is she really does realise that prioritising the single market over the freedom voted for will ensure the situation effectively "falls between 2 stools". It is, after all, just an attempt to avoid exit in all but name, and should not be considered worth touching with a forty foot bargepole.
Nothing the leavers pointed out as being necessary for an independent sovereign nation would be achieved, and yet we would no longer be a full member of the, "Please push us around we aren't capable of ruling ourselves", club. So if she is anything of a national leader she must insist on exiting, as demanded by the referendum result, and then see what new trade arrangement the EU will make with the UK.
It's been pointed out many times before that for all the bluster the existing trade arrangement (sans the four impositions) is of benefit to both groups, the EU more than the UK; so no sane negotiator is going to ruin their sides benefits in a fit of pique; so we can expect the EU to show more sense at the negotiating table than their pre-talk stance to their public indicates.
Therefore abandoning her pre-referendum stance on remaining, along with her fears of everything being doomed, and adopting the best exit stance instead, is exactly what she should be doing.