Should the UK Increase Its Use of Referendums?

Volume 27, Number 3, February 2018

UK politics Should the UK increase its use of referendums? This article provides more information relating to the feature on UK referendums in Politics Review Volume 27, issue 3 (pages 18–21) Bradley Minchin

Referendums play an integral role in the democratic systems of several European countries including Switzerland, Italy and Belgium, and in recent years they have been used more frequently in the UK. There have been benefits to this, and evidence has been established to advance strong arguments for their increased usage. This article looks at the arguments for and against referendums. Arguments for referendums Referendums are an important part of democratic renewal in the UK. They engage the electorate in live political debates and provide decision-making powers that are different to those in elections. In a general election, voters choose candidates from parties whose manifestos are based on a wide programme and range of policies. In referendums, voters make a choice on one key question. In the future, referendums could be used to determine the direction of important social and environmental policies. If the UK were to increase its use of referendums, then it is conceivable that the general public would become more politically literate and eventually act as a more effective check on government. Active public participation is key in any democracy; there is no reason why referendums cannot enhance the existing representative system. After all, parliament is not yet socially representative. It is not the microcosm that it should (and could) be. For coalition and minority governments, referendums provide a strong popular mandate on controversial topics. As referendums in the UK are only advisory, they act as a useful guide to public opinion. They complement parliamentary democracy and prevent governments from making deeply unpopular decisions. In the event that turnout is low or only a narrow majority is achieved in the vote, there is no legally binding reason why the government should act. As the UK constitution is uncodified, it is important that we continue to use referendums to ratify changes. Public consent also helps to entrench alterations to the constitution and safeguard them against repeal. For example, the Alternative Vote referendum in 2011 produced a clear ‘no’ majority (67.9%), which proved that there is no need to change the Westminster electoral system. Increased use of referendums could act both as a way of helping to restore the public’s faith in the political system and combatting voter apathy. In the past, referendums have been used on a local level to determine, for example, whether there should be an elected mayor. On a smaller scale, referendums need not be hugely expensive to organise and could lead to greater discussion and deliberation. The best way of combatting apathy is to give the public real decision-making powers over the issues that affect them the most. This could be extended further through the use of citizens’

Hodder & Stoughton © 2018 www.hoddereducation.co.uk/politicsreview initiatives, which would allow the public to trigger a referendum with a minimum quota of support. This approach has been effective in Finland, where public votes can be initiated automatically when at least 50,000 signatures are collected. Arguments against referendums On the other hand, serious thought needs to be given to the drawbacks and limitations of referendums before their use is increased. Drawing on recent examples, there are clear disadvantages that need to be considered. Referendums trivialise highly complex issues by oversimplifying them into a ‘yes’/’no’ vote. The UK EU referendum in 2016 proved this. Presenting the public with a straightforward question with only two possible outcomes is to ignore the details of how such decisions will be actioned. Referendums only really provide a snapshot of the public’s opinion at one point in time. Moreover, individuals tend to vote out of self-interest rather than the national interest. Weeks after the EU referendum there were calls for a second referendum, because it was felt that the public mood had changed in light of the result. In addition, the actual wording and language used in the question can be biased and affect the result, as can the timing of the vote (which is determined by the government). Referendums erode parliamentary sovereignty. We elect representatives to make decisions on our behalf so why do we need public consent? Parliamentary democracy in the UK operates along the Burkean model of representation, i.e. our MPs are our trustees, not merely delegates. They take decisions on our behalf because they are better informed than the general public. The general public is too easily swayed by the media and not well enough informed to make decisions that affect the constitution. Parliament is given a popular mandate through regular free and fair elections. Therefore, there should be no increase in the use of referendums. Referendums do not provide a resolution to highly divisive issues. The Scottish independence referendum in 2014 serves as a prime example. Despite the highest turnout (84.6%) since universal suffrage was introduced in 1928 and a clear majority (55.3%) voting ‘no’, the movement for Scottish independence continues to thrive. The SNP even built their 2017 election campaign on the promise of a second referendum. This led the press to dub the whole process as a ‘neverendum’. It begs the question: if the public will not respect and accept the outcome of referendums, then what would be the sense in increasing their use? Moreover, referendums aggravate deep factionalism within the government, which leads to greater instability and weakness. Indeed, it would seem that they create more problems than they solve. National referendums are problematic because the UK is comprised of four separate nations. Using the 2016 EU referendum as an example again, the results were highly divisive: England and Wales returned a majority ‘yes’ vote while Scotland and Northern Ireland returned a majority ‘no’ vote. In order to maintain the cohesion needed for a unitary state to operate effectively, we need to stop using referendums because they fuel independence movements and separatism.

2 Activities 1. If the UK did increase its use of referendums, what changes could be made to make up for some of the drawbacks? You could develop the following ideas: compulsory voting; lowering the voting age; stipulating a minimum turnout or majority margin before the vote takes place; employing a neutral third party to disseminate public information about both sides. 2. Should the public be given more than the two options of ‘yes’ or ‘no’? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of giving a wider range of options? Is there any merit in giving the public an ‘I don’t know’ option? 3. Given the prohibitive cost of holding referendums, at least on a national level, how could technology be employed to cut the cost? What problems might arise if referendums were held completely online? 4. One of the major arguments against allowing the public to initiate referendums is that it could allow populism to dominate the political agenda. On what issues do you think the British public might want to bring a vote forward? Why would this be problematic? Bradley Minchin is Head of Humanities at the British International School Hanoi, Vietnam and is an examiner

This resource is part of POLITICS REVIEW, a magazine written for A-level students by subject experts. To subscribe to the full magazine go to: http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/politicsreview