No one is denying that the government said it would accept the referendum, keith. it was a promise, and one of the defining features of a promise is that it can be broken.

It was a promise to accept advice. The question before the courts is not about whether the referendum was advisory - that has been accepted to be the legal position. The question is whether the government has the ability to fulfil that promise without seeking and obtaining the agreement of parliament.

It would in fact have been possible to make the referendum binding - that had been done in the case of the previous referendum, on the voting system. But it wasn't done this time, and that was stated in the referendum bill.