Right because the referendum didn’t need to be annulled because it had no legal standing anyway. Parliament did not need to act on it anyway.

I read the transcript from the court ruling. Advisory v mandatory was the difference and the only reason the vote wasn’t annulled.

Right. Exactly my point.

Nope. You really can’t.

It is if you’re being daft and sealioning.

The High Court ruled, in February 2019, that the vote was unlawful as Vote Leave, broke the law. Had the result been mandatory, it would’ve been annulled, but as it was only advisory it couldn’t. Theresa May’s QC, Sir James Eadie, admitted it.

Who made the promise? Did they have authority to make a promise that binds Parliament? And then two more questions: Did such a promise change the legal nature of the referendum to one that’s legally binding? And if so, is the referendum null and void as it met threshold for illegally?

Yeah cause politicians always do what they promise the electorate! Famously no government has ever failed to meet their manifesto pledges. 🤡 If the result HAD to be “honoured” you write that into the referendum legislation.

Now you’re catching on. It was never any more than an opinion poll.

No you are very wrong on that. Parliament didn’t vote to trigger Article 50. It should have debated and voted on exactly that.

It's simple. The change in demographics and the lived experience of Brexit mean that there is now a majority of circa 8 million for Remain/Rejoin. And that's without any real campaigning on the issue. Brexit was a Putin project. The EU understands that. Britons now realise it to and want to rejoin.

Follow me for #communications messaging frameworks that will help undo Brexit and get the UK back inside the EU quickly. #RejoinEU

Freedom of Movement of people, goods, service and capital are certainly indivisible in the context of the single market. But outside of that context, Freedom of Movement of people could certainly stand alone as a first step. In fact, it does in Switzerland. And between Ireland and UK too.

It’s upside down thinking to think that Freedom of Movement of people comes **after** rejoining the EU. It’s upside down because rejoining the EU isn’t even possible until UK is willing to accept Freedom of Movement of people.

I think it’s much better instead to let people talk about what they thought they were voting for and why they made the decision they did because then you can give them space to make choices about the future and change direction safely.

People respond to stories more than statistics. When people get emotionally absorbed into a story, defences drop. So a single story about: • a musician unable to tour • a couple separated by residency rules • a Brit unable to access their home abroad …can outperform 20 economic charts.

3. Your job is not “convince people to rejoin today”. Your job is to move them one step along the ladder. That’s how cultural change works.

1. The Overton Window moves through “normalisation” People don’t leap from “Leave means Leave” to “Rejoin tomorrow”.

2. They shift through stages: 1. Brexit is right 2. Brexit is disappointing 3. Brexit isn’t working 4. Brexit should be softened 5. We need new agreements 6. The UK should align again 7. Rejoin becomes thinkable 8. Rejoin becomes normal

“You voted for this Brexit” is a nonsense line. In 2016 people voted in an advisory referendum on a vague principle. They didn’t vote for the Withdrawal Agreement, the trade deal, the red lines, or the consequences. This Brexit was chosen by UK gov after the vote.

Support for Brexit has been on a downward trajectory since 2016.

Telling British voters over, and over, and over again that the Brexit they have is the Brexit they wanted and voted for… …is probably not the way to persuade them to change their mind. Why don’t we apply some communications science to this?

The messaging that works for us isn’t the messaging that works for people who are different to us.

3. Comms implication: You can’t win by saying “we’re more progressive than you.” You win by framing rejoining as: • patriotic • pragmatic • strengthening Britain • restoring control over life choices Rejoining must be narrated as British strength, not European virtue.

Not abstract freedom. Specific freedom: • freedom to live and work • freedom to study • freedom to trade • freedom to travel without hassle • freedom to care for family • freedom to build a cross-border life So in our comms: Rejoin should feel like re-expanding British lives.

1. Non-publics: Not affected, or don’t see how it affects them. They don’t notice the issue, don’t seek info, don’t care. Comms lesson: don’t bother trying to engage them.

Stories are not “soft comms”. They are the brain’s persuasion format.

Luigi, you seem to believe the British electoral system is fair and democratic. 1. The referendum was advisory. If it had been binding, it would have been annulled due to Leave cheating. 2. The Fist Past The Post system gave Johnson a majority, not the population. Leave never won a majority.

Labour won with under 34% of the vote. It really wasnt that successful. And why Labour is in so much trouble now.

Let me be clear. UK gov wanting Freedom of Movement of goods, services and capital without FOM people = cherry picking. UK wanting Freedom of Movement of People too ≠ cherry picking. #RejoinEU

The Prime Minister needs to get out his giant eraser on those red lines of his #RejoinEU #Brexit

Isn’t it time to retire this ridiculous slur?

2. But many Brexit voters were responding to: • loyalty • sovereignty • stability • cultural continuity

1. In Brexit comms, different groups respond to different moral instincts. Pro-Europeans often talk in terms of: • fairness • openness • cooperation

Let me be clear. UK gov wanting Freedom of Movement of goods, services and capital without FOM people = cherry picking. UK wanting Freedom of Movement of People too ≠ cherry picking. #RejoinEU

1. The illusory truth effect is brutal: the more people hear something, the more true it feels — even if it’s wrong. Brexit won partly because messages were repeated relentlessly: • “Take back control” • “Send them back” • “EU bureaucrats”

2. Pro-European comms has historically been too complex and too polite. Comms implication: #RejoinEU needs 5–7 core phrases repeated often, not 500 clever arguments.

Stop telling British voters “this is what you voted for.” That doesn’t persuade anyone. It triggers defensiveness, shame, and doubling down. Better: separate people from the policy. “This isn’t what anyone was promised. It’s not delivering. Let’s fix it.” That’s how minds change.

Emotion isn’t the opposite of reason. It’s the gateway to it. The amygdala flags relevance. If something feels irrelevant, it never gets processed deeply. Messages that connect to identity, belonging, or loss activate emotional circuits that increase memorability.

The brain remembers stories better than statistics because stories activate multiple neural networks (sensory, emotional, motor). That’s why framing wins. Which do you think people remember longer — “A policy change” or “Sarah who can’t visit her parents because of this rule”? Why?

Most decisions are fast and intuitive not slow and analytical. Rational arguments often justify decisions after the emotional judgement has already happened. This is why repeating “facts” rarely shifts entrenched beliefs.

2. Better approach: Frame the loss as specific, practical, fixable. Example: • “British people can’t spend time in their own homes in Europe.” • “Small exporters are drowning in paperwork.” • “Young people lost opportunity.” Concrete losses = persuasive. Abstract doom = exhausting.

Oh no?

Who’s feeding the meter? #RejoinEU

What do you reckon?

The Prime Minister needs to get out his giant eraser on those red lines of his #RejoinEU #Brexit

Et voila!

Support for Brexit has been on a downward trajectory since 2016.

Non, Luigi. 2016 - advisory referendum sham. = 52% 2017 - May lost her majority. Needed DUP. 2019 - Conservatives only won 44% vote share. 2024 - got rid of conservatives. Chose party led by remainer. 412 / 650 seats. = stonking majority 👊 💥 Per favore: Get it right, Luigi.

Young people deserve the same horizons previous generations had. But Brexit shrank their opportunities overnight. Youth mobility is a start — but freedom to move should not end at 30.