Despite the prime minister’s threats of dire retribution should peers attempt to amend her Brexit bill, the House of Lords this week demonstrated a determination to do its job. Wednesday’s vote requiring the government to guarantee the rights of EU citizens prompted the second highest vote ever in the upper house. Ironically, the record remains with the 1993 debate over the Maastricht treaty to enlarge the European bloc.

There were stirring speeches, heartfelt pleas and warnings about the perils of the unelected second chamber daring to challenge the will of the democratically elected Commons. The former Tory leader Lord Howard of Lympne declared that he was a unilateralist on the issue and would love to guarantee EU citizens’ rights but would not be supporting the amendment because the Commons had made clear its views. Labour’s Lord Richard interjected: “If that is so, what is the point of the House of Lords?”

An even more fundamental question will be on the order paper next week, and the Lords are likely to answer Lord Richard’s question by voting to amend the article 50 (notification of withdrawal) bill, to insist that parliament has a meaningful vote on the deal the government has negotiated.

So they should. The House of Lords has a responsibility to do what it believes to be right and not to be cowed by bullies, whether in the Commons, the media or the public. When I voiced my concerns after the EU referendum I received a torrent of abuse. The anger, hatred and misogyny that poured out of these missives was frightening evidence of the poison Brexit has released.

The government uses more moderate language but has been equally determined in its efforts to slap down any attempt by the Lords to fulfil its role. “This house and parliament should be in no doubt,” stated Lord Bridges of Headley in Wednesday’s debate. “We are leaving the EU, either through the deal we agree with the EU or without a deal.” That sounds remarkably like saying that the British people have made their bed and, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, the government will force them to lie in it.

This makes no sense. I want to know what the terms of our exit will be before I vote for it and I believe the people and not just parliament have the right to a say. Hence I am supporting calls for a referendum on the deal. Government by referenda is always dangerous but, having embarked on this route, it seems a sensible step. Why would a government so intent on “the will of the people” not seek their blessing for such a momentous decision? Could it be that Theresa May fears she will not be able to offer the public a better deal than the admittedly imperfect one we have now?

The House of Lords has a responsibility to do what it believes to be right and not to be cowed by bullies

But first, parliament has to be allowed a meaningful vote on the terms. The government has promised both houses will have the chance to vote on the deal but only on the basis that, if it is turned down, the UK will plunge out of the EU into the hardest of Brexits.

To many peers, this is an affront to the concept of the sovereignty of parliament, something that was said to be so dear to those who wanted to “take back control”. As Wednesday’s vote showed, when Labour, Lib Dems and cross-benchers join forces, they can easily defeat the government. The majority could be even greater next week, as a few more Tories decide to defy the three-line whip. Encouragement from the arch European, Lord Heseltine, might help.

From the outset, Theresa May has insisted she will accept no amendments to the bill and her MPs, most of whom were remainers, have meekly submitted to this approach. So the Lords’ attempt to secure a greater role for parliament in determining the future of the country is doomed. The bill will be pinged back to the Lords, minus the amendment, and it seems unlikely that peers will have the appetite to prolong the fight.

There will be other opportunities. The “three knights” legal opinion, commissioned by the People’s Challenge campaigners, allied to Gina Miller’s supreme court case on article 50, is clear that the government does not have the legal authority to leave the EU without a new act of parliament.

So when the Lords vote next week, they will have not only sense but the law on their side. That should make them brave enough to send a very strong message and, if necessary, to repeat it.