He had said well before the vote that he would do what the people voted for, if after the vote he said well I don't agree with you and you are not playing my game so I wont honour my previous statements then that would have been disgraceful. The two scenarios were known before the vote and the people have said this is what want.
Perhaps I didn't make myself quite as clear as I could have. During the past few days I heard him say he would only proceed if there was a reasonable majority. I would expect "reasonable" to be at least 10% but really, 20%.
I believe that perhaps 5% of the population (and I am being MASSIVELY generous here in an effort not to insult people) understand what is about to happen, and what the real pros and cons are.
He is the elected leader and whilst he has a responsibility to listen to the people, he is required to make RESPONSIBLE choices. Responsible is not blindly following the mass populaces will without due consideration.
As it is, he has done the next best thing and said "I disagree so strongly with this decision, with my greater knowledge of the negative impact of this, that I can't in good conscience, lead the country into this dismal mess".
I think option 1 would have been better than option 2.