No, I don't think that was the main thrust of the article. The main thrust was that on the issue of Brexit parliament is trying to thwart the will of the people. The highlighted paragraph at the start of the article reads:
"Unreconciled pro-Remain MPs cynically exploiting an interpretation of Parliamentary Sovereignty to try and negate the EU Referendum result have highlighted the urgency of radical post-Brexit Parliamentary reform."
That is a complete distortion of what happened. Yes there are some MPs, especially Lib Dem and SNP, who would like to reverse the decision. That is not really a surprise since they have always held the view that the UK is better off in the EU as do the people who voted them into office at least in the case of the SNP. They were doing what they were elected to do, i.e. represent the viws of their constituents. Shocking I know but what can you do? They are a minority. The majority of MPs have accepted that the people voted to leave and so the UK will leave. That is reflected in the vote. A majority of 494 to 122 does not support the above statement.
A panel of supreme court judges ruled that, according to constitutional law, parliament had to debate triggering Article 50. They made no comment whatsoever on what form the debate should take or how MPs should vote during that debate. They were not the enemy of the people. They simply did their job of upholding constitutional law.
Debates take place in response to a motion, in this case a bill authorising the government to trigger Article 50. Brexit is a complex process with a lot of unresolved issues that were never put to a popular vote and which need discussing. The way issues get discussed in parliament is to propose amendments to the original motion. Many amendments were proposed, all were discussed and all were defeated. The MPs fulfilled their rolls perfectly.
There are many things relating to the way parliament operates that could well be reformed but I don't think the Brexit issue has anything to do with them.
For a start a first past the post voting system inhibits the emergence of new political parties, as UKIPs 4.7 million votes to elect one MP illustrates. In 2011 UK citizens were consulted in a referendum whether to reform voting to bring in a proportional representation and rejected the idea by about 2 to 1 on a 41 % turnout. There is no doubt proportional representation would make parliament more representative but obviously the people don't really want that.
I am all in favour of voting reform but simply demanding photographic IDs is not the answer. A significant proportion of the electorate do not have any form of photo ID. They don't have a passport nor a driving licence. The same problem limits the ability to demand some form of photo ID when attending for medical treatment as has been suggested. A universal ID card, as is used in Greece would solve the issue but introducing one has a pretty rocky history. I would love there to be one but not in the form previously proposed. An ID card should serve the single purpose of identifying the person. It should not carry all data that has ever been recorded about that person, which is pretty much what the previous proposal included. The idea of an ID card has never been put to a referendum but listening to people's reactions when the issue is discussed suggests that a majority would be against on the grounds of invasion of privacy.
Anybody can stand for parliament but in reality if they are not backed by one of the main parties they won't get elected. Surely the members of a political party should be able to decide who should represent them? I think Jeremy Corbyn is evidence that the party elite don't always get their own way and grass root members do influence things. Personally I think that only people who live in a constituency should be considered to represent that constituency. I think anybody should be able to put forward a CV to the membership and the membership in that constituency should then decide who should stand. I suspect, however, that if such a system was adopted it would be the person who has worked their way up through the political system in local politics and who is known to the membership that would be selected. Party members are often active in local politics more than national politics.