Text Box: In his final remark, Lord Neuberger said that
the “ultimate question” in this case concerns
“the process by which [the referendum] result can lawfully be brought into effect”

That is completely false.
The case is, quite clearly, ultimately about who has the legal power to decide 
that the UK shall leave the EU.
It addresses it in the guise of the more focused and detailed question of whether
the Minister has power to give notice under Article 50(2).
But the judges of the Divisional Court took the trouble to make it perfectly clear
in §§ 15-16 of their written judgement of 3rd November 2016, 
that this is a distinction without a difference – that to say he can’t give notice the same as saying 
that the Government can’t make that decision.

Why would he make such a statement?
It seems that he has been affected by the vicious verbal attacks, in the press and elsewhere,
that the Divisional court suffered when it gave the judgement now being appealed,
and which the Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister both refused to condemn.

He obviously blundered.  He is not used to making political statements.
He was trying to reassure “the public” 
that a judgement against the appellant will not be a political judgement about Brexit.
Was he over tired, after a four day hearing?
Did he panic?
For whatever reason, he got things dreadfully wrong, and clearly implied that
a.	the referendum result is something that can be “given effect”,
is, in fact, a decison;
b.  that the giving of effect is subject only to the question of “how”, and not “if”.

He has created expectations that will be very dangerous when disappointed.