Indeed; a lot of people subscribe to the view that the vote delivered the 'incorrect' result because one side was more effective at lying than the other side.

Very difficult to know where to draw a line; my feeling is that even if history shows the people were wrong the government should not be allowed to (directly or indirectly) do something other than what they were elected to do - i.e. serve the people (on a plate, it seems).

And I write this from the losing side (in the referendum); about the only way it could get worse if it turns I'm on the winning side in the end (cf. Boaty McBoatface; the people were asked to vote for the name of the vehicle, but the powers that be didn't like such a frivolous name so they reneged and called it the RRS Sir David Attenborough instead. The parallel should be obvious).

Edit: toned down the rhetoric.

"Serving the people" can itself be interpreted both ways. Say there was a referendum and people voted to eliminate all taxes. Would they still have a duty to carry it out, knowing that it would most certainly lead to national collapse?

Yes. If people know that it could lead to national collapse, they'd more likely vote for actually sensible policies. If instead they think that "the politicians will figure something out" and that "my politicians are better than your politicians" you get the present political situation, when most votes (both referenda and elections) are less about policies and more about popularity, tribalism and virtue signaling.

See California and taxes. This assumption is certainly not a given.

What would be the point of the vote if they didn't stick to the outcome?

It would be "Advisory".

> Very difficult to know where to draw a line; my feeling is that even if history shows the people were wrong the government should not be allowed to (directly or indirectly) do something other than what they were elected to do - i.e. serve the people (on a plate, it seems).

Governments do this all the time, though. Campaign promises are often just that.

And we see time and time again how ineffectual the population is at getting people into a majority position of power to see the pop proposals of the day enacted.

These direct democracy votes often turn out this way - the people vote on a topic differently than how they vote for representatives. But a large portion of why we don't practice direct democracy in most of the west is because you don't want a mob of opinions dictating national law.

It isn't undemocratic for democratically elected representatives to go against a referendum. They were elected to rule on behalf of their people, even if that is in contradiction to non-binding votes by said people. Its their reelection funeral if they go against popular opinion and turn out wrong, but its their job to do it if they think its right. Its why we have representatives in the first place!

The Brexit Proposal was defeated by an unholy alliance of Remainers and Brexit supporters. Both parties are happy today though the onus will be on the former if they wish to remain in that state. As described by a lawyer (of sufficient status to attract an overnight detailed rebuttal from the Prime Minister's office - followed though, by a similarly detailed overnight rebuttal of a rebuttal (Spectator, December Issues) writing that the Prime Minister May Proposal was "atrocious" - a betrayal of what the Brexit decision should have resulted in, irrespective of the opinions of either remainers or leavers. In other words, in factual terms, the Brexit Proposal was not Brexit as envisaged.

Nothing that May could have delivered would have been at all similar to Brexit as envisioned. That is because Brexit, as envisioned by it's supporters was largely a pack of fairy tales.

The problem here is that they went ahead and voted for it, without actually doing the hard work of drafting a concrete proposal for how Brexit will happen.

"Popular soverignty" has no place in British constitutional history, only in Scotland; the traditional settlement is based on Parliamentary soverignty.

Brexit seem like a short term solution for a long term UK identity crisis.

It is a reaction to the identity crisis, but I don't think it is a solution at all.

All of that remains to be seen. There are two major causes to this particular outcome.

1. Article 50 is an exceptionally poor piece of legislation if your objective is to deliver a smooth and equitable separation from the Union.

2. The Irish border is very sensitive and prone to violence, and the Irish government has successfully ensured that their concerns addressed in the form that they have been, within the withdrawal agreement.

1. It is actually a pretty well written piece of law, the about only problem in it is short timeframes - it wasn't imagined in the spirit of complete political mess but more like an orderly exit option with previous long deliberation. Unfortunately British politicians love to stall and waste time, eventually invoking a fallback clause.

I don't think that was important to Brexit voters. It's an emotional vote, a rejection of something, and they didn't care about the consequences. The favorable deals are only a way to keep the debate going.