And what are the results? To leave with no deal?
In any case it is NOT legally bound. But it acts as it was.
To leave the European Union one way or another, since that was the question they asked and the answer they got. With whatever deal they believe best for the country and its people, which may or may not end up being no deal.
> In any case it is NOT legally bound. But it acts as it was.
The government's legal obligations come from its duty to the people, not the other way around.
There is nothing to prevent any government, or any future government going against a referendum result. Parliamentary sovereignty means no restriction can be placed on any future administration changing the law.
[0] https://www.economist.com/special-report/2015/10/15/herding-...
There is no such obligation in UK law. Partly because we're a constitutional monarchy.
You can't keep asking the people until they give the answer you want and then seize on that. Holding another referendum after say 10 years have passed seems reasonable.
> At the end of the day I don't think the public were qualified to answer the question as it was posed. There were too many unknowns and too much false information. We elect people to represent us because we believe they are qualified to do so.
I agree. But, Cameron having chosen to hold the referendum, his party is duty-bound to implement its results.