So, what if the Supreme Court does not overturn the decision of the High Court in respect of the need for a Parliamentary vote on the serving of Notice pursuant to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty? The government could then table a simple motion something along the lines of ‘This House notes the outcome of the referendum held on 23rd June 2016 on the UK’s membership of the European Union and instructs H M Government to give notice to the European Union pursuant to Article 50 ..’ or something along those lines. It would be a brave MP who did not vote for such a motion they would effectively be saying they did not accept the outcome of the referendum. I think there are many people who do not. The ones who talk about a ‘soft Brexit’ code for saying really we want to negotiate a deal which involves the U.K. Staying in the single market and still being subject to the free movement of people …. oh and we might as well keep paying our contributions because it would be unfair not to. In other words we would to all in tenets and purposes still be members of the EU and the referendum result would have been frustrated.
There may be some MP’s who would vote against such a motion but I still believe there would be no difficulty in it being passed by the House of Commons. Things might be trickier in the House of Lords. Some have already indicated they would vote against such a motion. However the number one concern of most members of the House of Lords is self-preservation and I reckon they will soon work out what would be on the cards if the unelected Lords tried to frustrate the will of the British people and the House of Commons on this issue.
David Nuttall 
PS = I welcome your suggestion that the House of Lords badly needs replacement.
Has this always been your view – or is it a recent conversion prompted by them exercising their power in a way you do not like ?
If so you would be tinkering with our constitution for convenience, not principle – another very dangerous thing I believe.
This is an interesting issue – you suggest that all MP’s should vote for Brexit – 100% for 0% against.
But that would not represent the will of the people – 52% wanted Leave and 48% wanted Remain.
How would the Remainer’s wishes be represented in parliament ?
This is especially pertinent regarding Scotland where a majority voted Remain. Is it not appropriate that Scottish MP’s are able to reflect this in what they do in Parliament.
Indeed MP’s must represent their constituents first and foremost, sometimes when local matters conflict with a national imperative. It interests me how MP’s such as Jacob Rees-Mogg will reconcile his support for Brexit with the knowledge that a majority of his constituents voted to Remain. On this basis voting with the outcome constituency by constituency might be a better solution than a 100% Brexit vote ?
Except I suspect that Rees-Mogg might argue that he is a delegate elected and able to use his judgement when it comes to representing his voters in the House of Commons. So he could justify voting for Brexit having taken his constituents views into account. And of course the opposite could apply.
These are very thorny and complicated issues, but voting against a motion to leave would not necessarily be refusing to accept the result, as you contend.
The difficulty raises because of the Referendum legislation, which Nigel Farage admitted on the Andrew Marr show was only ‘advisory’. MP’s are responsible for that mess !
And now some seem to want to play fast and loose with centuries old constitutional conventions to get their way, irrespective of the rights of our citizens. It is a shameful and worrying episode.