On 08/11/2016 22:53, Optimist wrote:
But it was a non-binding advisory vote.

When a government is defeated in a general election the outgoing PM advises the monarch to ask the
leader of the winning party to form a government. But if this is only advisory, the Queen doesn't
have to follow it, does she? Well of course she does because "advised" in practice means
"instructed".

Totally irrelevant.

In fact, the Queen could refuse to take that advice. Which would cause
a(nother) constitutional crisis.

Similarly, the people "advise" parliament in referendums. But in practice after every referendum,
parliament does as instructed by the people (Europe in 1975, Scottish, Welsh, London, North-East
devolution, N. Irish border, alternative vote, Scottish independence). Why should this one be any
different?

Scottish independence and the 1997 referendums weren't written to be
binding.

The Alternative Vote referendum was explicitly binding:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/1/section/8

"The Minister must make an order bringing into force section 9, Schedule
10 and Part 1 of Schedule 12 (“the alternative vote provisions”) if —
(a) more votes are cast in the referendum in favour of the answer “Yes”
than in favour of the answer “No”, and
[...]
(2) If more votes are not cast in the referendum in favour of the answer
“Yes” than in favour of the answer “No”, the Minister must make an order
repealing the alternative vote provisions."

The latter was done:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2.../contents/made

Europe in 1975 wasn't binding. I heard an interview with one of the
ministers involved in that who said that a "no" vote would have been
used to negotiate better terms with the rest of the EEC and would *not*
have led to us leaving.