As MPs faced a long night in the House of Commons, the future of the country in their hands, it could at least be said that there was no lack of gravity among Britain’s parliamentarians. As Brexit Secretary David Davis put it, “the eyes of the nation are on this chamber”, and so they are.

It is clear that MPs who campaigned to keep the UK inside the EU find themselves particularly torn. They face cogent arguments for not standing in the way of Article 50 being triggered: they may be disappointed, even fearful of the prospect of Brexit, but by voting with the Government they are fulfilling the will of the majority as expressed in last summer’s referendum. Equally, they can contend quite reasonably that they were elected to represent their constituents’ views (which might on the whole be pro-EU), not those of the wider UK. They could, indeed should, conclude too that they came to Parliament to use their judgement – and if they believe Brexit will lead to disaster, would it not be perverse to enable it?

Perhaps this explains why there has been much parliamentary hand-wringing, alongside a little mud-slinging too. All sides, it now appears, accept that the referendum campaigns were less than edifying. Yet for all the impassioned calls in the Commons to respect the “will of the people” or to vote on the basis of individual conscience, it is hard not to conclude that there remains too little debate about the reality of how Brexit will affect key issues – notably trade, immigration and the wider economy, but also defence and security. As was the case during the campaigns last year, there is much emotion and not enough rigour.

Nick Clegg came close when he argued that a vote to leave the EU was sold on the basis of fundamental untruths, and that – notwithstanding the fact that Britain’s economy has not suffered the immediate post-referendum dip that some anticipated – if MPs vote to trigger Article 50 they will be committing their constituents to a poorer future. Some Brexiteers are quite content to see that happen, of course; others delude themselves that the UK can walk away from the EU into a magical pot of gold. But the point Mr Clegg makes is a sound one: the referendum asked for voters to say whether they wished to stay in the EU or to leave; it did not set out any information on the terms of departure.

The SNP’s Brexit spokesman, Stephen Gethins, meanwhile highlighted the oddity that the Government plans to publish its White Paper, setting out its Brexit plans, after Parliament has voted on whether to make the UK’s withdrawal from the EU possible. Yet again, the cart is being placed before the horse, debate forced to take place in an information vacuum. If the White Paper contains startling revelations about how ministers plan to move forward with their Brexit negotiations, what will MPs do then?