Sorry was not on line earlier so to answer some questions about my earlier post :-
The quote was how a senior EU diplomat saw the UK situation, not me. I copied and pasted it from the Channel 4 website.
He thought 57% was the average vote against the EU across England and Wales outside London - some areas 70% Leave. Difficult for locally selected and elected MPs to go against that tide of voter opinion - even though they have the constitutional right to do so as referendums are advisory not binding.
London & Scots MPs might vote against the referendum result arguing they are representing their regions as the margin for Remain was so high there, but together, these MPs are not a majority at Westminster. MPs with solid Remain voting backing in their constituency might argue their case and face the flack of the rest of the country but would there be a majority of MPs even then?
Constitutionally any MP who thinks Leave puts the safety and integrity of the Country at risk would be duty bound to vote against (their oath on taking office). They are also supposed to vote with their judgement - they are representatives not delegates and if you add those to the above the numbers begin to look better for Remain BUT and this is the clincher: Cameron had already closed down all options.
The PM might have said the 'if the margin across the whole country either way is narrow, if world reaction to the result puts the economy at risk, if the unity of our country is at risk, I will hold a free vote on accepting the result in the H of C or a second referendum after negotiations'.
However, the EU diplomat was pointing out (diplomatically) that Cameron had already declared both before and after the referendum he accepted a simple majority result. I might add Farage said beforehand that if the vote was very close, for example 52% to 48% Remain, he wouldn't accept it and demand another referendum.
In most countries that have a written constitution (we are probably unique in being a democracy without one) it would need a much bigger majority of voters (from 55% to two thirds) in an referendum. In countries comprised of different nations the agreement of all or a majority of Regions/Nations to overturn a decision about a 'constitutional' issue such as this one is also usual. This is because very narrow votes might bring problems which is why these rules are common e.g.: mob rule/electorates can be fickle/ignore facts/even not vote on the real issue on the ballot paper/ regions might rebel/ a large single interest group might rebel.
We don't have a written constitution. The laws we do have say Welsh and Scots legislatures cannot legally override Westminster on EU matters.
