National Identity and Origin of Laws

Dear Sir,

I would like to take on just two of the many comments made in last week's Chronicle regarding Brexit and the Liberal Democrat's position.

The first is by Ted Gibbins when he asks why we should have a second referendum when close elections do not get or request a second vote.

I think the difference is that with a referendum you are supposedly voting on a single subject that is of major importance and lends itself to a yes -no decision.

Unless the electorate is used to referenda and can be relied on to stick to the question and it is accompanied by unbiased truthful information, it is liable to be manipulated and controlled by politicians and not the people.

Representative democracy on the other hand depends on a rather nebulous connection between the Parties' manifestos and a vote on the one that most closely resembles one's views and is more straightforward though not free from deceit and manipulation.

The other is by A Corbett who argues that "we" should be able to make our own laws and not be subject to an "unelected, unelected bureaucracy".

Leaving aside the questions raised in his comments as to whether elected representatives play any part in EU rule making, in any society laws are made by some for others to follow.

He is appealing to our sense of national identity in stating where are laws should come from. Would he object to laws coming from Manchester, Macclesfield or Geneva? Is national identity so much more worthy of the right to determine our laws than regional, local or continent based ones?

Yours sincerely,

Dr Peter Hirst

Middlewich