It's most likely representatives driven by the fear of voting against the outcome of that simple referendum. Sure it's absolutely OK technically but the whole brexit thing is still a major fuckup as nobody was remotely aware of the implications of that simple question, not even those who asked as it seems.

"This is a British Democracy" [1]

[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gmOvEwtDycs

There was a referendum and a parliamentary vote. What else would need to be done to not make it an aberration?

What part of the brexit process do you think is not best described as an aberration with respect to the normal democratic process of the U.K?

I'll give you one clue. It's extremely rare to hold a referendum of such huge consequence.

Heck, I'll give you a second clue. It's even more rare for politicians to then behave as if the result of a non-binding referendum is binding.

I could enumerate for you the remaining peculiarities, but if you're curious you'll find plenty for yourself.

I do understand that people often like to point to simple cases like this and say "That's Democracy!", inevitably those people don't have a great understanding of the meaning.

'The people have spoken - the bastards!'

Normally, in a parliamentary system, when the government loses a vote of confidence in parliament, the government resigns and a new election is held.

This referendum was more or less a confidence vote on the government. If British democracy were functioning properly, the government would have resigned, and the people would have had a chance to elect pro-brexit representatives.

But Britain adopted fixed election dates, copying the American electoral system. And referendums, for that matter, aren't very parliamentary.

Go with the outcome d_t_w preferred.

What outcome did I prefer?