"the economic worries and predictions, the difficulty of trade deals"
Well, where to start on this, the trade deals haven't begun, the pound has tanked, investments that were due to take place has stalled, even the much reported consumption increase is below what was predicted prior to brexit! There are all sorts of economic effects that have been held off because article 50 was enacted immidately so saying: " Ah it hasn't happened" when the economy is doing fine because nothing has changed except we've had a shed load of money pumped into the banks and interests rates lowered is naive.
Parliament need to debate brexit, whether it is actually going to go ahead or not because the act that brought about the referendum states clearly that it is not legally binding, but advisory. Cameron said he would follow it in a manifesto pledge, but manifesto pledges as we know don't mean its legally binding.
"Is the suggestion now that Parliament can or should simply vote to say it was a bad idea to hold the referendum because the answer isn't one that many of them agree with and, as such, it will be disregarded?"
I doubt that would occur, but the parameters in which Brexit can be sought could be defined and the terms which the UK would seek to exit the EU could be further cleared up. In fact I think it would be a massive undermining of democracy to allow article 50 to be declared without parliamentary debate.
Its incredibly hypocritical to wage part of a campaign on democracy and sovereignty and then decide that the sovereign power holding institution in this country doesn't get a say.
I do think there may be a situation in which if we don't start art50 in Jan that it may be kicked into the long grass further to wait for the outcome of the French and German elections too.
The noises coming from Whitehall suggest that those entrusted with these negotiations knew so little about the impact, and legal side that its going to take them months to get up to speed.