I take it you're not a fan of representative democracy? Again, the people voted 'Leave'. But the judiciary has decided Parliament can bind it's successors.
Where to start with how wrong that is...
Firstly, a referendum is not representative democracy, if the enabling act states that it is advisory, it is technically and legally an opinion poll. Representative democracy involved electing representatives (the clue's in the name) to represent a constituency; note that it is their duty to represent the interests of all their constituents, not just the ones they agree with, or who voted for them, and it is their job to represent the interests of the country as a whole above that. Loyalty to a political party comes third, and to opinion polls, somewhere much further down the list of priorities in the land of what is personally politically advantageous.
Elected politicians are expected to weigh up the facts in a way that normal people don't have the time or expertise to do (which is why it's a paid full-time job), and call on expert opinion to support that decision making process.
Secondly, I'm not sure where you got the idea from that Parliament can bind its successors, or that the judiciary decided this. What the judiciary demonstrated is that Parliament has supremacy over government, not the other way around. Parliament is perfectly free to pass any Act of Law amending this position, if they can get a majority for it, and any subsequent Parliament (or even the same Parliament) can pass further Acts to supersede, amend or repeal that original act. If there's no explicit Act of Parliament dictating the position to be taken, then it is perfectly well within the remit of the Supreme Court to look at precedent and constitutional convention and make a ruling, which in turn becomes precedent. None of this restricts the laws that a Parliament can bring in the future - all it says is that the government cannot sideline Parliament when it is inconvenient, for purely political purposes, because it is the constitutional role of parliament as a whole to make policy, not the government of the day. Normally, of course, a government would command a majority in parliament, and woudl expect its business to pass the House with a majority as a result, unless they try to do something that both the opposition, and enough of their own MPs object to.