I only remember having the option to vote in parliamentary elections for my local MP.
But the government was elected with a manifesto commitment to protect our interests in Europe and hold a referendum. It was not, to my knowledge, invested with a mandate to act on that referendum in the way that it is doing.
Sounds a bit like the EU, but we all know[1] how that's a completely different out-of-control unelected bureaucracy[2].
[1] Have been told
[2] The EU parliament doesn't count, for vague reasons that change every time you hear it.
The current PM's actions are quite illegitimate.
Of course, you won't do that - because you know very well the current UK government is perfectly legitimate.
And "brexit" was voted for by the people. People like you only start complaining when they dislike the result - or please show me your similar complains when the result was to your liking, because there always are people who abstain. Only votes from people who vote count, what a huge surprise.
Your argument is a fallacy. In any division there are going to be those who agree and disagree with the outcome. Of course the people who get what they "wanted" don't argue against it. But they also shouldn't argue against the legitimacy of those who don't to continue to argue their point. That is the difference here.
Yes, there was a vote on an advisory referendum that had not specific details about what the outcome should be. What does that make legitimate?
If Theresa may had decided that to leave the EU we had to go to war with Europe, would that be legitimised by the vote?
This argument is about the terms of any such approach and how to legitimise those.
They did. The court sided against the government. They appealed to the supreme court, whom we are currently awaiting a judgement from.