BWM, you call me a cunt for telling you that when I click on your link it takes me to the start page.
That is a fact and Kevin found the same. Is he a cunt too?

That was just a side issue anyway.
My point was and is that the government assured the country that it would implement the decision, even though the Bill you keep on about said it did not have to.
Labour also promised a binding in/out referendum.

Steve,
The government said that it would be bound by the result. A political promise (which should be seen in that context). Not legally binding. That's not what they said and it's not what they could have said. It's perfectly possible to hold an advisory referendum and promise in advance that you'll stick to the result. What you can't promise is that you'll change the law without consulting parliament. Invoking Article 50 inevitably means changes in the law. That's what the judges decided

Spot on Steve, except that the decision is disputed and will be appealed. I am not qualified as you presumably are to know if they got it right.