The UK is not a plebiscite democracy, it is not a social media “like-cracy”, it is not run by the will of the people. It is not America. For the past three and half centuries, the only legitimising authority after the Crown has been Parliament.

Candidates for becoming MPs are not chosen by the people; they are put forward by the parties. Party leaders are not chosen by the people; they are chosen by the parties. Prime Ministers are not chosen by the people; they are appointed by the Crown. The “will of the people” is not constituted in UK law: Parliament has been sovereign for a very long time.

When the UK had its previous EU referendum in 1975, it was simply a state-sponsored opinion poll, and was not then considered legally determining. Parliament had approved the European Communities Act of 1972 and every treaty since. Only by a further Act of Parliament can these be retracted, hence the Great Repeal Bill with Parliamentary scrutiny. None of this was or should be determined as solely dependent upon a referendum.

I suggest that the referendum was misrepresented as an official plebiscite from the start, that Government was negligent in allowing this to be misunderstood and that the supportive arguments for and against were grossly misrepresented. The result was as close to 50:50 as need matter. The British people spoke with a resounding (and typical) “maybe/maybe not”; areas of the UK spoke more forcefully.

Only Parliament can respond “aye” or “nay” as it has done so since the Restoration of the Monarchy.

Duncan Dwinell

Kent

Nearly 400 years ago Oliver Cromwell "took back control" by successfully transferring power from the Crown to to Parliament. That is all that Gina Miller’s High Court ruling has done, but this time by peaceful means. How perverse that those who are outraged by the ruling choose to overlook this. We are a parliamentary democracy.

"Get over it!", as the Brexiteers delight in repeatedly saying.

Patrick Cosgrove

Bucknell

There’s nothing wrong with choosing to wear a poppy

Robert Fisk, annually it seems in The Independent, rages against the wearing of poppies – in particular, the “boys and girls” and the “TV chumps” in media and politics and, by implication, anyone wearing one.

Leaving aside the personal insults to all who do it should be noted that Fisk is, to use his own terminology, “elderly” and has personal family reasons to rubbish the ritual of remembrance. To those aged between “boys and girls” and “elderly” poppy wearing goes beyond the Cenotaph parade and represents not the wars but all wars.

We should not rage against the causes of wars but remain focused on all those who died in them so that Fisk and letter writers can have their say.

Mike Dodds

London W11

Yes, newsreaders wear poppies because it’s the politically correct thing to do, but for me wearing a poppy is a very personal thing. I can’t begin to think about what it might have been like for me,as a wife and mother, to have my family taken away from me to go to war not knowing when or if they would return. In the world wars these men had no choice.

The horror of 60,000 British men being killed in close combat on one day, as happened on the first day of the Battle of the Somme, is unimaginable to have to live through. Every one of those men was someone’s child, and if I had been born in another era it could have been my husband and/or son. They would have gone having no choice. That is what I am remembering and respecting.

The politics that got them there is not relevant to me.

Anna Taylor

Sunbury-on-Thames

This referendum is no different to those of the past

I am an ardent supporter of Brexit for the very reasons mentioned in your editorial: to restore the sovereignty of parliament and to promise a reinvigoration of Britain's independence from EU's bureaucracy and meddling in our internal affairs.

However, the UK has held three referendums over the past couple of years on serious issues pertinent to our national security: a referendum on the political status of the Falkland islands, on the sovereignty of the Gibraltar and on whether Scotland should remain an integral part of the UK. Not a single word was raised about the legitimacy of the outcomes.

Every sector of society promised to respect the will of the people. Why should this referendum be any different to its predecessors?

Dr Munjed Farid Al Qutob

London, NW2

People are swallowing propaganda yet again

I read today that Stephen Raven, joint deputy leader of the Ukip group on Boston Borough Council, has stated in relation to some of his constituents “They have been saying to me: ‘It sounds like Brexit is being overturned.’ They have been asking: ‘Is this a stitch-up?’”

Unfortunately it would appear that once again misinformation is being peddled. Were these Ukip Brexiteers who “reacted with fury” to actually read what the ruling stated, then perhaps they would be better enlightened.

I dare say these were the same voters who eagerly swallowed the propaganda served up by the Leave Campaign in the run-up to the referendum?