I know what happened thanks. It was an advisory referendum, but it was often claimed not to be - after the referendum John Redwood claimed in parliament that it was not advisory. He was wrong. The government argued that the referendum gave the government the power to trigger Article 50 without a further vote in parliament, and the Supreme Court ruled against them. But that's all besides the point.
The point is that you have claimed that a promise (that the referendum would be non-binding) was broken. It wasn't.
It was binding. They changed the law in order to break that promise.
You can type out as many long winded answers as you like. That’s a fact. As you have agreed in your above post.
You’re not quite the full ticket are you, Son? Ha!