1. What is a referendum?
Referendum: a direct vote in which the electorate is asked to give a Yes/No answer on a single issue, rather than electing a representative to decide on their behalf.
- Referendums are a form of direct democracy, contrasted with the UK’s usual system of representative democracy.
- Because of parliamentary sovereignty, referendums in the UK are technically advisory, not legally binding on Parliament – but in practice, the result of a referendum has always been acted upon.
- Referendums have become more frequent in UK politics since 1997, often used to settle major constitutional questions (devolution, electoral systems, EU membership).
- Pre-legislative vs post-legislative: a referendum can be held before the detailed law is drafted, so voters do not know exactly what they are choosing (e.g. the 2016 EU referendum, where ‘Leave’ was not defined in advance), or after Parliament has already passed the detailed law, so the vote simply ratifies or rejects it (e.g. the 2011 AV referendum, where the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 had already set out exactly what adopting AV would mean).
Case study: In Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU (2017), the Supreme Court confirmed that the 2016 referendum result had no direct legal effect and that an Act of Parliament was required before the government could trigger Article 50 – a clear legal confirmation, not just a political convention, that UK referendums are advisory only.
- Only the UK Parliament can legally authorise a referendum on a reserved matter, such as the future of the Union; a devolved parliament cannot hold one on its own authority.
Case study: In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that the Scottish Parliament did not have the power to legislate for a second independence referendum without Westminster’s consent, because the Union is a reserved matter under the Scotland Act 1998.
2. Key UK referendums
| Year | Referendum | Result / turnout |
| 1975 | UK membership of the EEC | 67.2% Yes on a 64.5% turnout |
| 1979 | Devolution for Scotland and Wales | Scotland voted 52% Yes, but failed a rule requiring 40% of the whole electorate to back it; Wales voted No |
| 1998 | Good Friday Agreement (Northern Ireland) | 71.1% Yes on an 81% turnout |
| 2011 | Adopting the Alternative Vote (AV) for Westminster elections | 67.9% No on a low 42.2% turnout |
| 2014 | Scottish independence | 55.3% No on a very high 84.6% turnout |
| 2016 | UK membership of the EU (‘Brexit’) | 51.9% Leave on a 72.2% turnout |
3. Arguments FOR the use of referendums
They enhance democracy
- Referendums give the public a direct say on a specific issue, rather than relying on an MP or party to interpret a mandate from a general election.
- They can settle issues that cut across traditional party lines, where party position alone would not reflect the public’s view.
Case study: Both the Conservative and Labour parties were internally divided over Brexit, so a referendum let the electorate decide directly rather than leaving it to party managers.
They provide legitimacy for major decisions
- A referendum result carries strong political and moral authority because it comes from the whole electorate, not just a parliamentary majority.
- This is especially useful for entrenching significant constitutional change, making it harder for a future government to reverse.
Case study: The 1998 Good Friday Agreement referendum gave the Northern Ireland peace settlement a democratic mandate on both sides of the border, which strengthened its durability.
They increase political participation and education
- Referendum campaigns can raise public engagement with an issue and stimulate debate that a general election might not.
- Voters have to weigh arguments on a single question, which can improve political knowledge and interest, particularly among younger or previously disengaged voters.
Case study: The 2014 Scottish independence referendum saw turnout of 84.6%, higher than any UK general election since 1950, and engaged 16 and 17 year olds for the first time.
They can resolve conflict and check government power
- Referendums act as a safeguard against an elected government using its majority to push through highly contentious or irreversible change without direct public consent.
- They can be used to devolve power, giving nations and regions a direct voice over their own governance.
Case study: The 1997 devolution referendums gave Scotland and Wales a direct democratic mandate for their own parliament/assembly, rather than this being imposed by Westminster alone.
4. Arguments AGAINST the use of referendums
Voters may lack the information or expertise to decide well
- Complex, technical issues are reduced to a single Yes/No question, which can oversimplify multi-faceted problems.
- The public may vote based on the campaign’s tone, media coverage or a single issue, rather than a full understanding of the consequences.
Case study: Critics argued the 2016 EU referendum reduced a hugely complex set of trade, legal and constitutional questions to a single binary choice, and that the long-term consequences of Leave were not fully understood by voters at the time.
Low or unrepresentative turnout can undermine legitimacy
- Unlike general elections, referendum turnout can vary enormously, raising questions about whether the result truly reflects the will of the whole electorate.
Case study: Turnout for the 2011 AV referendum was only 42.2%, one of the lowest of any UK-wide vote, which weakened claims that the result reflected settled public opinion.
The rules of the vote can decide the outcome
- The government sets the question, the timing and any thresholds in advance, so the design of a referendum – not just how people vote – can determine the result.
Case study: In the 1979 devolution referendum, Scotland voted 52% Yes to 48% No, but a rule imposed by Parliament required 40% of the entire electorate (not just those who voted) to back the change. Turnout meant only around a third of eligible voters had backed devolution, so it did not proceed – despite a clear majority of those who voted being in favour.
The franchise can vary between referendums
- Unlike general elections, there is no fixed, permanent franchise for UK referendums; the government of the day decides who is eligible to vote each time, which can affect the result and raises questions of fairness.
Case study: 16 and 17 year olds and EU nationals resident in Scotland could vote in the 2014 independence referendum, but neither group could vote in the 2016 EU referendum – a difference that critics argue was politically as much as constitutionally motivated.
They can be divisive and entrench conflict rather than resolve it
- A binary Yes/No vote can harden opinion into two opposing camps and deepen social and political divisions, especially on a close result.
Case study: The 2016 Brexit referendum (52% to 48%) is widely seen as having deepened Leave/Remain divisions in UK society and politics for years afterwards, rather than settling the question.
Campaigns can be manipulated by the media, money and elites
- Well-funded or media-backed campaigns may be able to dominate the airwaves and shape public opinion through simplified slogans rather than balanced debate.
- Concerns are regularly raised about the accuracy of campaign claims and the transparency of campaign funding.
Case study: Both the Vote Leave and Britain Stronger In Europe campaigns in 2016 were criticised for misleading claims (e.g. the Vote Leave bus figure on NHS funding), raising doubts about how informed the electorate’s choice really was.
They undermine representative democracy and parliamentary sovereignty
- The UK is built on a representative system in which MPs are trusted to weigh evidence and make informed decisions on the public’s behalf; frequent referendums bypass this.
- Governments have been accused of calling referendums for party management or political advantage rather than genuine principle.
Case study: David Cameron called the 2016 EU referendum partly to manage divisions within the Conservative Party and see off the electoral threat from UKIP, rather than purely out of constitutional principle.
5. Referendums and initiatives in other democracies
The UK’s approach – rare, government-called, advisory referendums – is only one model. Comparing it with other democracies is a useful way to evaluate how well the UK system works.
Switzerland: the most extensive system of direct democracy
- Switzerland uses direct democracy far more than the UK, with national votes held up to four times a year on around fifteen issues at once.
- Mandatory referendum: any change to the Swiss constitution must be put to a public vote, and must win a ‘double majority’ of both the national popular vote and a majority of the 26 cantons.
- Optional (facultative) referendum: 50,000 citizens’ signatures within 100 days can force a public vote on a law already passed by parliament.
- Popular initiative: 100,000 citizens’ signatures within 18 months can force a public vote on a proposed constitutional amendment, even against the government’s wishes.
Case study: In 2024, a popular initiative to cap Switzerland’s population at 10 million was put to a vote (and narrowly rejected, 55% to 45%), demonstrating how citizens – not just the government – can force a referendum onto the agenda.
- Unlike the UK, Swiss referendums are citizen-initiated (bottom-up) as well as government-initiated, and mandatory referendums are legally required for constitutional change rather than being a matter of political convention.
Ireland (Eire): referendums as a legal requirement
- Under the Irish constitution, any amendment to the constitution legally requires a referendum – unlike the UK, where using a referendum for constitutional change is only a political convention, not a legal rule.
- This has made referendums a regular feature of Irish politics, especially on moral and social issues.
Case study: Ireland voted to legalise same-sex marriage in 2015 (62% to 38%, 60.5% turnout) and to repeal its constitutional ban on abortion in 2018 (66.4% to 33.6%, 64.1% turnout) – but rejected a government-backed referendum on the definition of family and care in 2024, showing voters do not automatically follow the government’s recommendation.
- This illustrates a key advantage of referendums: government cannot simply legislate on sensitive constitutional issues without direct public consent.
The USA: direct democracy at state, not federal, level
- The USA has no provision for a national referendum; direct democracy instead operates at state level, where roughly half of US states allow citizen initiatives and/or referendums, a reform dating from the Progressive Era (California adopted its system in 1911).
- Initiative: allows citizens who gather enough signatures to place a proposed new law or constitutional amendment directly on the ballot, bypassing the state legislature.
- Popular referendum: allows citizens to petition for a public vote on a law the state legislature has already passed.
Case study: California’s Proposition 13 (1978) used the initiative process to cut property taxes and reshaped state finances for decades; Proposition 8 (2008) used the same process to ban same-sex marriage, before being overturned by the courts – showing how initiatives can also threaten minority rights.
- Some US states also allow recall elections, letting citizens vote to remove an elected official before their term ends, a mechanism the UK does not have at national level.
What the comparison shows
- The UK’s use of referendums is comparatively rare and top-down: the government of the day chooses if and when to hold one, and the result is technically only advisory.
- Switzerland and the US states show a more citizen-led (bottom-up) model, where the public itself can force a vote through signatures – arguably more democratic, but also open to well-funded campaign groups driving the agenda.
- Ireland shows a middle way: referendums are legally required for constitutional change, giving them more force than in the UK, without the very frequent citizen-initiated votes seen in Switzerland.
Exam tip: In a comparative/synoptic question, use one clear international example to support a point about the UK system – for instance, contrasting the UK’s advisory referendums with Ireland’s legally binding requirement, or noting the risks of frequent voting shown by Switzerland.
6. Evaluation
- On balance, referendums are best suited to major constitutional questions (sovereignty, devolution, electoral systems) rather than routine policy-making, where representative democracy remains more practical and accountable.
- Their legitimacy depends heavily on turnout, the clarity of the question, and the fairness of the campaign – factors that vary considerably between the examples above.
- A strong essay answer will weigh these advantages and disadvantages against each other, using specific UK examples on both sides, rather than treating referendums as simply ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for democracy.
Exam tip: For a ‘to what extent’ or ‘evaluate’ question, use at least one case study to support each argument, and reach a clear, justified judgement in your conclusion rather than just listing points.