EU referendum

However, before we cheer too loudly at this gift of power, we should ask ourselves whether a referendum is the right vehicle for deciding an issue of such magnitude.

We should also be aware of the law of unintended consequences.

One of the main problems of any referendum is ensuring that there is a continuous supply of information on which a decision can be reached. It is incumbent on every voter to study the pros and cons of staying in or leaving the EU. However such are the complex arguments on both sides that this becomes very difficult. For example what are the pros and cons of remaining in the European single market compared with leaving it for a trading arrangement similar to those negotiated by the Norwegians and the Swiss?

Another issue is that of sovereignty.

How does the electorate assess the sovereignty gained by the UK leaving the EU with that lost by it having to make alternative trading arrangements in any renegotiations with the EU and countries in the wider world?

In a global world no country can preserve its total sovereignty.

To help us through this labyrinth of issues we expect the press to set out both sides of the European issue but already we see partisan views appearing in some papers with little or no attempt to put both the case for remaining and that for leaving.

A consequence of this will be an electorate devoid of impartial information taking the most important decision for generations to come not on the basis of a rational appraisal of the facts but rather on the basis of a gut-feeling.

Another unintended consequence could affect the next General Election.

In the event of civil war in the Tory party and David Cameron being replaced as Prime Minister post-referendum, whatever the outcome, he is likely to be succeeded by Boris Johnson. Thus the 2020 election could be an uninspiring contest between Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn, both of whom have yet to make a detailed contribution to the referendum debate.

The final unintended consequence could be another Scottish independence referendum if Scotland votes to remain in the European Union while England votes to leave. So, following the referendum we could see Britain leaving the EU and Scotland leaving the UK – the law of unintended consequences should never be dismissed.

The citizens of ancient Athens invented direct democracy but occasionally fell foul of their own creation. They eventually came to realise that taking key decisions required not passion but foresight.

This is what is required of all of us on June 23.

SW Lennie, Leyburn

FAR from Brexit being “a leap in the dark” (D&S Times, Mar 4), if Britain should vote to stay in, it would not be a question of resuming the status quo with our 27 EU “partners”.

We all saw the intransigence with which David Cameron’s recent efforts to renegotiate Britain’s position was met. We watched as he and his team toiled for days and nights in the bureaucratic quagmire of Brussels and Strasburg, but still he came away with precious little of his original wish list; and none of which is guaranteed to be sacrosanct for future years.

If the outcome of our referendum should be to remain in the EU, I doubt that we would be welcomed home like the prodigal son. We would most likely be disregarded as the awkward squad of malcontents who when their moment finally came hadn’t the courage to make the leap – be it dark or light.

As for being able to influence things better by retaining a seat at the EU table, that would be as ineffective as being in a noisy football crowd and shouting advice to the referee: for good or ill the rules remain unchanged and the game goes on.

Ian Tugwell, Hunton, Bedale

YOUR correspondent, Geoffrey Mash (D&S Times, Mar 25), has a limited memory of the history of Europe. The European Free Trade Area is a failed concept. It simply did not work well enough. The idea that the UK, minus Scotland, could negotiate a favourable deal, on equal terms, with China, the second largest economy in the world, is, to put it politely, highly unlikely.

Only Europe, collectively, has the political and economic clout to negotiate with the United States and to stand up to Putin’s Russia.

John Harris, Richmond