RIP thread

That is a rather revisionist view of history, and IMHO turns history on its head. What is your evidence, or your logical reasoning for that statement ?

A major part of continued "resistance" or perhaps resentment to Brexit amongst many is BECAUSE what was pursued was one of the hardest of all possible Brexits. Considerably harder than most of the main protagonists had pitched to the electorate during the campaign. And that was a result of May, a Remainer who felt she needed to get the Leave champions 'on side', drew a whole load of red lines before even entering negotiations. It pandered to that constituency, but those red lines were incompatible with a soft Brexit. 

And there was, in the eyes of "Remainers" simply no mandate for a 'hard' Brexit given that the vote was so close. Let alone that the vote was not for any specific terms and conditions or agreement for our leaving, or our forward relationship. 

On the bolded point. Well that of course would amount to a coup/insurrection, given it would be attempting to prevent the constitutional and legal transfer of power as enshrined in our democracy [oh for a written constitution]. Whereas the referendum was advisory only. Referendum's de facto have no constitutional meaning or significance in the UK. The referendum had to have enabling legislation, and Parliament in its wisdom chose to make it an advisory referendum i.e. a result that Parliament should consider/take into account but not required to act on. They could have chosen to make the outcome legally binding, but did not do so. 

So drawing a parallel between attempts to overturn a GE and the result of the referendum is simply false for those reasons. And regardless Parliament itself did not attempt to prevent the Govt acting on the outcome. They did argue that the Executive did not have the authority to advance the process without agreement from Parliament. Which is not exactly a bad thing to be ensuring in what is a Parliamentary democracy. 

Not sure who you think has forgotten what democracy means.

I know that democracy in the UK, at a national level, means a representative democracy. We elect members of parliament to take decisions on our behalf. It enshrines the primacy of Parliament over the executive (for nearly all matters). It requires the executive to get approval from Parliament for all substantial matters (with the prior caveat). It embodies the concept of Parliament having both authority and responsibility to hold the executive to account. 

In the UK a referendum has no legal or constitutional standing other than that which it is given by the specific - Parliament approved - legislation which enabled it. Unlike in a direct democracy. That also is a matter of fact.

Of course we all know that while the referendum posed a binary question, the outcome of one of the answers was always non-binary in nature: No Ts&Cs/future agreement/leaving conditions were actually being voted on, just a broad concept. And it was advisory, and the enabling legislation did not give carte blanche to the executive to proceed without Parliament's approval, Nor empower it to sign an agreement without Parliaments approval. On those grounds I would suggest that it is those that argue otherwise that have forgotten what democracy in the UK actually means. 

None of which is intended to say anything about the rights or wrongs of Brexit, or the Brexit we got. Just to point out the flaws in an argument which equates Parliament attempting to carry out its constitutionally settled role to a subversion of democracy.