“Proud of yourselves?” splashes the Mail, with a rogues’ gallery of last night’s Tory rebels. “Yes,” should be their defiant reply. What’s more, they are likely to do it again if the government is foolish enough to put forward other Brexit clauses that defy democratic scrutiny of this most vital decision.

Next week they look set to reject the absurdity of fixing an arbitrary date of departure regardless of where we stand at the time.

The Mail straps across its front page: “11 self-consumed malcontents pull the rug from under our EU negotiators, betray their leader, party and 17.4m Brexit voters and – most damning of all – increase the possibility of a Marxist in No 10.” That’s what you would expect from inside what increasingly looks like an extreme political cult. “Mutiny”, says the Telegraph; “Revenge of the Rebels”, blasts the Times.

Nadine Dorries MP adds: “They should be deselected and never allowed to stand as a Tory MP again.” Good grief. Labour didn’t even deselect Kate Hoey, the Farage-hugging serial rebel who appears to disagree with her party on everything, from foxhunting onwards.

Last night’s vote scraped by on a majority on four, so add praise to those four Labour Brexiters whom Jeremy Corbyn personally persuaded to rejoin their colleagues and back the Grieve amendment. No one need be pro-remain to be swayed by powerful speeches, especially the one from Grieve warning of constitutional sabotage if everything in future can be fixed by fiat of the government of the day, bypassing parliament.

So does she set off today to Brussels weakened? “May undermined before Brussels trip” warns the Times. No, she seeks a start to the next stage no longer at the mercy of hard-Brexit guns to her head. Parliament’s refusal to march to the extremists’ drumbeat gives her flexibility to strike a deal that does least harm.

Where is “the will of the people” in the complex negotiations ahead? Yesterday a serious piece of research, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, published the findings of a citizens’ assembly, throwing far deeper insight into Brexit attitudes than crude opinion polls. Fifty citizens scientifically selected for age, class, region and politics – slightly more leavers than remainers – were given extensive information on options ahead by diverse experts and economists, overseen for neutrality by an advisory panel including Bernard Jenkin and Hilary Benn.

After four days of debate, with a chance to question whomever they liked, they were not asked to rerun the crude in-or-out referendum vote: they were asked about the options and trade-offs to come, such as between the balance of controlling migration and getting a good trade deal. Over four days, they explored fiendish intricacies the referendum ignored: paying into the EU, workers and environment rights, Ireland, the economy, public services, UK autonomy and more.

Their final opinions were a country mile away from Mail and Telegraph headlines. On trade, 28 of the 50 decided either to stay in the single market (14 of them) or to leave but seek maximum EU free trade, zero tariffs and frictionless borders (another 14). Next, 19 chose to leave the single market and seek a limited, zero-tariff deal but leave out non-tariff barriers and the regulation that those entail. Only three chose to leave with no deal.

Among many options and second preferences, descending from cake-and-eat-it to crashing out, finally they were asked: what if we can’t get a good trade deal? Only 19 would crash out, while 31 would stay in the single market.

In the Commons yesterday, helping to launch these findings was Suella Fernandes MP, head of the hard Brexit European Research Group. She praised the citizens assembly as the best way to consult people, and said politicians should listen. But here’s the rub: did she herself take note that a large majority, once they had become well informed, would make the compromise of less control and more migration freedom in exchange for frictionless trade? Hell, no. “No deal is better than a bad deal,” she parroted – precisely the opposite of what most of these citizens concluded.

Citizens’ assemblies are wonderful – if only the whole population could be given the chance for such serious, informed deliberation. Instead we have the Daily Mail and the rest. But, as ordinary opinion polls are increasingly suggesting, the Tory “rebels” and “mutineers” may be much closer to the will of the people than the fanatical Brexiteers and their press. Tory MPs daring to “speak for England” – and all the UK nations – should stick to their guns – and others who were too frit last night should join them.