The Battle of France was a battle of contrasts. Generally contrast between German excellence and Allied myopathy.
Arras was the exception to the rule. The Germans were there in considerable strength, and resisted strongly, but were caught off guard by the British, which on this one occasion (up to that point), got their act together and were able to deliver a (relatively) co-ordinated attack, albeit on a woefully inadequate scale. Britsh troops had shown themselves fairly equal to the task defensively, but were inneffective in an offensive role, as were the French.
Hitler , after the completion of the French campaign, in a conversation with Ciano described the British as good soldiers, very stubborn, but miserably led. I would accept that as a reasonable assessment.
Heree and there though there were glimmers of superior leadership in the British Army. It would take another three years of bitter experiences for those dim sparks of leadership to ignite into a full fires of initiative and effective combat performance.