Luigi di Angeli
@luigidiangeli.bsky.social
Lawyer. Economist. European by conviction, Italian by temperament. Commenting on politics, power & culture. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Suspicious of weak leaders. Ex Anglophile.
Trust in Brussels won’t be rebuilt by relitigating the past. It will be rebuilt by present choices and consistent behaviour.
Trust comes from what you do next, not what you argue about last decade.
Trust comes from what you do next, not what you argue about last decade.
February 14, 2026 at 10:53 PM
Trust in Brussels won’t be rebuilt by relitigating the past. It will be rebuilt by present choices and consistent behaviour.
Trust comes from what you do next, not what you argue about last decade.
Trust comes from what you do next, not what you argue about last decade.
A man dies in a passport queue in Lanzarote is a human tragedy. To weaponise his death for Brexit point-scoring is distasteful.
February 14, 2026 at 6:32 PM
A man dies in a passport queue in Lanzarote is a human tragedy. To weaponise his death for Brexit point-scoring is distasteful.
Correct, you’re not shackled to a decade-old Parliament. A new majority can choose a different path.But you don’t move forward by relitigating 2016. You move forward by winning a clear, honest mandate for something new and coalescing around it.
February 14, 2026 at 6:24 PM
Correct, you’re not shackled to a decade-old Parliament. A new majority can choose a different path.But you don’t move forward by relitigating 2016. You move forward by winning a clear, honest mandate for something new and coalescing around it.
I feel you may be mixing law and politics.
Legally, the referendum was held under statute. It didn’t change the law itself: Parliament did.
Politically, you’re arguing MPs lacked courage. That’s a critique of leadership, not legality.
If there’s a new mandate, a new Parliament can act.
Legally, the referendum was held under statute. It didn’t change the law itself: Parliament did.
Politically, you’re arguing MPs lacked courage. That’s a critique of leadership, not legality.
If there’s a new mandate, a new Parliament can act.
February 14, 2026 at 4:11 PM
I feel you may be mixing law and politics.
Legally, the referendum was held under statute. It didn’t change the law itself: Parliament did.
Politically, you’re arguing MPs lacked courage. That’s a critique of leadership, not legality.
If there’s a new mandate, a new Parliament can act.
Legally, the referendum was held under statute. It didn’t change the law itself: Parliament did.
Politically, you’re arguing MPs lacked courage. That’s a critique of leadership, not legality.
If there’s a new mandate, a new Parliament can act.
Correct, the government couldn’t bind Parliament. And campaign promises weren’t law. Parliament knew expectations had been inflated and claims oversold. The hard judgment was theirs to make.
Yes you can argue they should have blocked it. But the responsibility and the choice was for parliament.
Yes you can argue they should have blocked it. But the responsibility and the choice was for parliament.
February 14, 2026 at 2:32 PM
Correct, the government couldn’t bind Parliament. And campaign promises weren’t law. Parliament knew expectations had been inflated and claims oversold. The hard judgment was theirs to make.
Yes you can argue they should have blocked it. But the responsibility and the choice was for parliament.
Yes you can argue they should have blocked it. But the responsibility and the choice was for parliament.
If the outcome diverges from what was sold, trust erodes. True. But that’s a political accountability argument not a legal basis to void the vote. And ignoring the result wouldn’t have restored trust. It would’ve only deepened the fracture.
February 14, 2026 at 2:28 PM
If the outcome diverges from what was sold, trust erodes. True. But that’s a political accountability argument not a legal basis to void the vote. And ignoring the result wouldn’t have restored trust. It would’ve only deepened the fracture.
With respect, constitutional and electoral law don't appear to be her forté
February 14, 2026 at 2:20 PM
With respect, constitutional and electoral law don't appear to be her forté
You’re repeating a comforting myth. There was no statutory annulment mechanism in the 2015 Act. None. “Mandatory” doesn’t conjure one into existence.
Courts don’t void national votes on vibes. If it’s in the judgment, quote it.
Courts don’t void national votes on vibes. If it’s in the judgment, quote it.
February 14, 2026 at 1:58 PM
You’re repeating a comforting myth. There was no statutory annulment mechanism in the 2015 Act. None. “Mandatory” doesn’t conjure one into existence.
Courts don’t void national votes on vibes. If it’s in the judgment, quote it.
Courts don’t void national votes on vibes. If it’s in the judgment, quote it.
As mentioned previously “don’t be daft” isn’t an argument.
If there’s no trust in the system, ignoring a nationwide vote doesn’t restore it. You don’t fix cynicism by confirming it.
If there’s no trust in the system, ignoring a nationwide vote doesn’t restore it. You don’t fix cynicism by confirming it.
February 14, 2026 at 1:12 PM
As mentioned previously “don’t be daft” isn’t an argument.
If there’s no trust in the system, ignoring a nationwide vote doesn’t restore it. You don’t fix cynicism by confirming it.
If there’s no trust in the system, ignoring a nationwide vote doesn’t restore it. You don’t fix cynicism by confirming it.
That’s not how UK law works. Even a “binding” referendum can only be voided if the statute provides a mechanism to annul it.
The 2015 Act didn’t. Elections have petition procedures. The referendum didn’t. “Acting as if” binding doesn’t import election law by analogy.
The 2015 Act didn’t. Elections have petition procedures. The referendum didn’t. “Acting as if” binding doesn’t import election law by analogy.
February 14, 2026 at 1:10 PM
That’s not how UK law works. Even a “binding” referendum can only be voided if the statute provides a mechanism to annul it.
The 2015 Act didn’t. Elections have petition procedures. The referendum didn’t. “Acting as if” binding doesn’t import election law by analogy.
The 2015 Act didn’t. Elections have petition procedures. The referendum didn’t. “Acting as if” binding doesn’t import election law by analogy.
February 14, 2026 at 1:09 PM
That’s not how UK law works. Even a “binding” referendum can only be voided if the statute provides a mechanism to annul it.
The 2015 Act didn’t. Elections have petition procedures. The referendum didn’t. “Acting as if” binding doesn’t import election law by analogy.
The 2015 Act didn’t. Elections have petition procedures. The referendum didn’t. “Acting as if” binding doesn’t import election law by analogy.
I deny nothing, I accept reality however flawed.
Yes, Vote Leave breached spending rules. They were fined.
No, no High Court annulled the referendum. No court voided the result.
“Broke campaign law” ≠ “referendum legally invalid.”
That leap exists on Twitter, not in the judgment.
Yes, Vote Leave breached spending rules. They were fined.
No, no High Court annulled the referendum. No court voided the result.
“Broke campaign law” ≠ “referendum legally invalid.”
That leap exists on Twitter, not in the judgment.
February 14, 2026 at 12:48 PM
I deny nothing, I accept reality however flawed.
Yes, Vote Leave breached spending rules. They were fined.
No, no High Court annulled the referendum. No court voided the result.
“Broke campaign law” ≠ “referendum legally invalid.”
That leap exists on Twitter, not in the judgment.
Yes, Vote Leave breached spending rules. They were fined.
No, no High Court annulled the referendum. No court voided the result.
“Broke campaign law” ≠ “referendum legally invalid.”
That leap exists on Twitter, not in the judgment.
“Ignored” sounds neat in theory.
In practice, telling 17.4m voters their decision simply didn’t count would have detonated trust in the system overnight.
In a democracy, you can argue the process was flawed.
But once Parliament commits to honouring a result, discarding it isn't an option.
In practice, telling 17.4m voters their decision simply didn’t count would have detonated trust in the system overnight.
In a democracy, you can argue the process was flawed.
But once Parliament commits to honouring a result, discarding it isn't an option.
February 14, 2026 at 9:46 AM
“Ignored” sounds neat in theory.
In practice, telling 17.4m voters their decision simply didn’t count would have detonated trust in the system overnight.
In a democracy, you can argue the process was flawed.
But once Parliament commits to honouring a result, discarding it isn't an option.
In practice, telling 17.4m voters their decision simply didn’t count would have detonated trust in the system overnight.
In a democracy, you can argue the process was flawed.
But once Parliament commits to honouring a result, discarding it isn't an option.
You can argue there were lies in the campaign.
But lies in politics don’t automatically void a national vote unless the statute provides a mechanism to annul it which the 2015 Act didn’t.
Moral outrage and legal invalidity are not the same thing.
But lies in politics don’t automatically void a national vote unless the statute provides a mechanism to annul it which the 2015 Act didn’t.
Moral outrage and legal invalidity are not the same thing.
February 14, 2026 at 9:35 AM
You can argue there were lies in the campaign.
But lies in politics don’t automatically void a national vote unless the statute provides a mechanism to annul it which the 2015 Act didn’t.
Moral outrage and legal invalidity are not the same thing.
But lies in politics don’t automatically void a national vote unless the statute provides a mechanism to annul it which the 2015 Act didn’t.
Moral outrage and legal invalidity are not the same thing.
Fair enough. Parliament decided via the 2017 Act. Even if MPs felt politically compelled by the referendum, that compulsion wasn’t legal, it was political.
They could have chosen differently. They didn’t. That’s the constitutional point.
They could have chosen differently. They didn’t. That’s the constitutional point.
February 14, 2026 at 8:41 AM
Fair enough. Parliament decided via the 2017 Act. Even if MPs felt politically compelled by the referendum, that compulsion wasn’t legal, it was political.
They could have chosen differently. They didn’t. That’s the constitutional point.
They could have chosen differently. They didn’t. That’s the constitutional point.
Different issue.
The 2018/19 litigation was about campaign breaches and process not voiding the referendum or reversing Article 50.
As for Single Market/Norway: those were political promises, not legal guarantees.
Brexit wasn’t defined in the question. Parliament defined it in the negotiations.
The 2018/19 litigation was about campaign breaches and process not voiding the referendum or reversing Article 50.
As for Single Market/Norway: those were political promises, not legal guarantees.
Brexit wasn’t defined in the question. Parliament defined it in the negotiations.
February 14, 2026 at 8:37 AM
Different issue.
The 2018/19 litigation was about campaign breaches and process not voiding the referendum or reversing Article 50.
As for Single Market/Norway: those were political promises, not legal guarantees.
Brexit wasn’t defined in the question. Parliament defined it in the negotiations.
The 2018/19 litigation was about campaign breaches and process not voiding the referendum or reversing Article 50.
As for Single Market/Norway: those were political promises, not legal guarantees.
Brexit wasn’t defined in the question. Parliament defined it in the negotiations.
Correct. The PM couldn’t trigger Article 50 by prerogative and that’s why Gina Miller won in Miller (No 1). The Supreme Court required an Act of Parliament.
Parliament then passed one. The trigger happened because Parliament legislated.
Parliament then passed one. The trigger happened because Parliament legislated.
February 14, 2026 at 6:30 AM
Correct. The PM couldn’t trigger Article 50 by prerogative and that’s why Gina Miller won in Miller (No 1). The Supreme Court required an Act of Parliament.
Parliament then passed one. The trigger happened because Parliament legislated.
Parliament then passed one. The trigger happened because Parliament legislated.
Q1: Who decided to trigger Article 50?
A1: Parliament via the 2017 Act.
Q2: Who decided to leave the EU?
A2: Politically: the electorate, Legally: Parliament, when it authorised the notice.
A1: Parliament via the 2017 Act.
Q2: Who decided to leave the EU?
A2: Politically: the electorate, Legally: Parliament, when it authorised the notice.
February 14, 2026 at 6:20 AM
Q1: Who decided to trigger Article 50?
A1: Parliament via the 2017 Act.
Q2: Who decided to leave the EU?
A2: Politically: the electorate, Legally: Parliament, when it authorised the notice.
A1: Parliament via the 2017 Act.
Q2: Who decided to leave the EU?
A2: Politically: the electorate, Legally: Parliament, when it authorised the notice.
Yes, you can: the Voters made the political choice based on which parliament made the legal one.
That’s how parliamentary sovereignty works.
That’s how parliamentary sovereignty works.
February 14, 2026 at 6:15 AM
Yes, you can: the Voters made the political choice based on which parliament made the legal one.
That’s how parliamentary sovereignty works.
That’s how parliamentary sovereignty works.
Then we agree that: -
firstly, the legal nature of the referendum was set by the 2015 Act.
Secondly there was and is no binding clause or annulment mechanism.
And finally parliament retained sovereignty throughout and chose to act?
firstly, the legal nature of the referendum was set by the 2015 Act.
Secondly there was and is no binding clause or annulment mechanism.
And finally parliament retained sovereignty throughout and chose to act?
February 14, 2026 at 6:09 AM
Then we agree that: -
firstly, the legal nature of the referendum was set by the 2015 Act.
Secondly there was and is no binding clause or annulment mechanism.
And finally parliament retained sovereignty throughout and chose to act?
firstly, the legal nature of the referendum was set by the 2015 Act.
Secondly there was and is no binding clause or annulment mechanism.
And finally parliament retained sovereignty throughout and chose to act?
In the UK system, the “decision” is the Act.Parliament passed the 2017 Act authorising Article 50 notification. That’s the constitutional trigger.
There isn’t a separate filed memo marked “Decision to Leave.” The legislation is the decision.
There isn’t a separate filed memo marked “Decision to Leave.” The legislation is the decision.
February 14, 2026 at 5:37 AM
In the UK system, the “decision” is the Act.Parliament passed the 2017 Act authorising Article 50 notification. That’s the constitutional trigger.
There isn’t a separate filed memo marked “Decision to Leave.” The legislation is the decision.
There isn’t a separate filed memo marked “Decision to Leave.” The legislation is the decision.
Parliament passed the 2017 Act authorising the PM to notify under Article 50.
That is the decision in UK constitutional terms.
Subsequently there was non need for a separate motion saying “we independently agree.”
Authorising the trigger is deciding to pull it.
That is the decision in UK constitutional terms.
Subsequently there was non need for a separate motion saying “we independently agree.”
Authorising the trigger is deciding to pull it.
February 14, 2026 at 5:34 AM
Parliament passed the 2017 Act authorising the PM to notify under Article 50.
That is the decision in UK constitutional terms.
Subsequently there was non need for a separate motion saying “we independently agree.”
Authorising the trigger is deciding to pull it.
That is the decision in UK constitutional terms.
Subsequently there was non need for a separate motion saying “we independently agree.”
Authorising the trigger is deciding to pull it.
That is incorrect.
Even if it had been framed as “binding,” a UK court can only void a vote if the statute provides a mechanism to do so which the 2015 Act didn’t.
“Binding” doesn’t automatically create annulment powers. Only Parliament can write those in.
Even if it had been framed as “binding,” a UK court can only void a vote if the statute provides a mechanism to do so which the 2015 Act didn’t.
“Binding” doesn’t automatically create annulment powers. Only Parliament can write those in.
February 14, 2026 at 5:22 AM
That is incorrect.
Even if it had been framed as “binding,” a UK court can only void a vote if the statute provides a mechanism to do so which the 2015 Act didn’t.
“Binding” doesn’t automatically create annulment powers. Only Parliament can write those in.
Even if it had been framed as “binding,” a UK court can only void a vote if the statute provides a mechanism to do so which the 2015 Act didn’t.
“Binding” doesn’t automatically create annulment powers. Only Parliament can write those in.
You’re conflating two things here.
The referendum had no automatic legal effect so parliament wasn’t compelled to implement it.
But it absolutely had legal standing as it was held under statute.
Which means that parliament could have ignored it but it chose not to.
The referendum had no automatic legal effect so parliament wasn’t compelled to implement it.
But it absolutely had legal standing as it was held under statute.
Which means that parliament could have ignored it but it chose not to.
February 13, 2026 at 11:40 PM
You’re conflating two things here.
The referendum had no automatic legal effect so parliament wasn’t compelled to implement it.
But it absolutely had legal standing as it was held under statute.
Which means that parliament could have ignored it but it chose not to.
The referendum had no automatic legal effect so parliament wasn’t compelled to implement it.
But it absolutely had legal standing as it was held under statute.
Which means that parliament could have ignored it but it chose not to.
Correct. The referendum didn’t change the law by itself.
Parliament had to decide whether to implement it and it did, by passing the 2017 Act authorising Article 50.
The Voters expressed a choice which parliament converted into law.
Parliament had to decide whether to implement it and it did, by passing the 2017 Act authorising Article 50.
The Voters expressed a choice which parliament converted into law.
February 13, 2026 at 11:35 PM
Correct. The referendum didn’t change the law by itself.
Parliament had to decide whether to implement it and it did, by passing the 2017 Act authorising Article 50.
The Voters expressed a choice which parliament converted into law.
Parliament had to decide whether to implement it and it did, by passing the 2017 Act authorising Article 50.
The Voters expressed a choice which parliament converted into law.