I made perfectly clear in my post that there is a distinction between the legal situation, which has always meant that the referendum was purely advisory, and the political reality that it has been, and will be treated as binding. Evidently that's how you see it too. What's to argue about in that?

Where there is room for argument is about what that actually implies. The referendum merely asked about membership of the EU, nothing else. The outcome was that the UK should leave the EU.

However though a lot of people might have been motivated to vote that way by ideas about cutting out freedom of movement, that wasn't in the question. Nor was anything about leaving the single market.

If it came to a choice between staying in the single market and removing the right to freedom of movement, it would in no way be defying the result of the referendum if the choice was made to retain freedom of movement, and stay in the single market, while leaving the EU. (A Norway style solution). And the same would apply if that deal was arranged for the parts of the UK which voted against Brexit- Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The significant bit about the court decision is that, though it seems pretty likely that the government would be likely to see depriving us of free movement as the priority, rather than staying in the single market, it is by no means certain that they could get a majority of MPs to reliably back that. So it makes a difference whether Parliament makes that kind of decision or the "Crown in Parliament", ie the Prime Minister.