In each case, the result shows people want change. They want something other than what they see as a system that is only superficially dependent upon them, during elections, but the choices are “all the same”. What people mean is that after elections, the people’s wishes are not in mirrored by their elected proxy, and it is really is far from what they see as democratic. The public are a means to an end for most politicians. They are useful as a tool when they want what the politician wants, to back up their argument, but for the most part are superfluous.
When the public are least likely to agree with a course of action, the more chance they wont be considered worth consulting. The politicians know this, but don’t see it as necessary.
The public should be represented by their representative, in a way that mirrors how they would decide themselves. It doesn’t require consultation necessarily always, if the politician does as they know they should really.
BUT, the public may not be able to choose without enough understanding in some cases, is the argument that some MPs may offer. In some cases this may be true, and can be fixed easily as you will see. It also is rather a dangerous argument, as it may make the politician assume they know enough too easily,and become applied always afterwards to other situations. What we need is a way for them to see what the public who understand would decide. It is often easy to assume if someone doesn’t agree that they aren’t up to speed, and so dismiss those that may understand better than yourself.