@fjelle ahh, well you see, the English elite are a bunch of cunning stunts. The 'advisory' referendum changed in a milli-second. Cameron was asked 'what now' seconds after the votes were counted. The idiot replied 'the people have spoken'. The right wing press & the BBC TV news turned it into a done deal. Alles klaar?

@fjelle Which leaves me scratching my head, I do like the equivocation in 'statutory non-binding'; seems like a contradiction in terms. "what do learn from this?"...making laws by referendum is a pretty crap way of forming / approving political decision making. Not just because 'Leave Means Leave' squeaked in but because I honestly believe that however long it takes the aim must always be to pass laws that are for the benefit of the majority of all over a substantial (say a generation = 25 years). Collective / collegiate decisions are generally better than those born from confrontation. Here (UK) it all begins with our NFFP electoral system with a good dose of political ignorance / awareness and education thrown in.
Note, I'm not going anywhere near the Ukrani situation. My personal experiences out there and my knowledge of the history of Mittle Europa from the 11th Century on clouds my thinking and reasoning, so I say nothing.

@Palky (2/3)
We, the electorate, shouldn't be bombarded with stupid referenda in the first place. Only referenda that actually matter. How to do that -> would say a maximum amount of referenda per year...
'cause my municipality held a non-binding ref. asking “Besloten wordt tot het instellen van een algemeen vuurwerkverbod in de gemeente Alkmaar.” (translate yourself...) If you said 'no' then you were in favour of fireworks, not very handy...