It is, I fear, time to address some legal questions surrounding the referendum - and say a couple of things none of the two #Brexit sides want to hear (thread)
The first one concerns the “annullment” of the referendum. Let’s suppose that electoral law would allow that - would that be effective?
You might remember that the referendum was advisory. That was one of the reasons that the Miller case held that parliamentary action was required to leave the EU. The referendum was not the legally relevant decision to leave the EU. Here’s a para. From the Miller judgment 
Annulling the referendum would not as such “void” a parliamentary decision.
Neither, I am afraid, would it void the Art. 50 notice. The Art. 50 notice was sent by the UK government giving notice that the UK wants to leave the EU. It is a unilateral declaration under EU / interantional law.
Other states do not want to be put in a situation where they have to examin the validity of such statements under national requirements they don’t know. What counts is that they come from an entity with the correct authority. The notice did that.
The only problem one might raise concerns Art. 50(1) TEU under which national constitutional decision-making requirements have to be followed. But I agree with @StevePeers : that’s not a requirement of EU law, but a deferral to national law.
@StevePeers Having disappointed remainers, let me disappoint leavers: if we ever want to unite the UK again, we have to address the weaknesses that were exposed. Which weaknesses, you ask?
@StevePeers Both leave campaigns were found to have broken electoral law by the independent electoral commission. Here’s vote leave electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journal…
Addressing this by treating the electoral commission as partial (without evidence other than not liking the result) or as just one side of the argument destroys UK institutions that are an essential part of UK democracy. It makes the problem worse.
Outside interference with the referendum is another problem. These issues have to be addressed, convincingly.
The constant reference to “the largest democratic exercise in the UK” and “the largest majority” doesn’t help - it is utterly unconvincing. A 52% vote in which two of four countries making up the UK voted the other way is a close vote.
Belittling outside influence like @OwenJones84 does here is intellectually lazy and unconvincing as well. Why?
Serious resources are invested in influence campaigns. We have rules for campaigns. All of this for a reason: because it matters. For a journalist who says he campaigned to say campaigns do not have an impact is ... bizarre.
These problems need to be looked as comprehensively - you cannot have a person lie to Parliament repeatedly, break electoral law and in compensation get a national platform on the BBC. That is the death of UK democracy.
Having this investigation doesn’t and shouldn’t mean that the 52% did not speak THEIR mind.
To bring the country together we cannot dismiss either the 52 or the 48 %.
