Jeez I really don't know where to start on your post Andy but let's have a bash anyway:
1.inferring that the vote is not binding - The vote never was binding it was advisory. From the FT BEFORE the referendum 'The relevant legislation did not provide for the referendum result to have any formal trigger effect'.
http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2016/06/14/can-the-united-kingdom-government-legally-disregard-a-vote-for-brexit/
2. 'worst of all, that Parliament must be consulted.' - It was always known that Parliament may be consulted. From the same article 'Or they (The Govt) could say it is now a matter for parliament, and then endeavour to win the parliamentary vote.'
3. 'If the people have voted in a referendum, what do Parliament need to say, other than, yes, that's fine.' This shows a complete ignorance of constitutional process and the devolving of law.
4. 'the notion that parliament needs to be aware of the exit strategy is nonsense' Sort of correct BUT, It wasn't Parliament who needed to be aware, it was our Government.
5. 'if they know, the EU will know' Really? By what automatic process does this happen?
6. 'Parliament can be apprised as we go, but not in advance' I don't know where to begin with this one in particular but the suggestion that Parliament is just some body to be consulted rather than the constitutional driving force leads me to believe you need to do a bit of reading up, Andy.