Another argument for the wider use of referendums would make the electorate better informed on individual issues. For example, in some US states a detailed document is produced setting out the arguments and financial costs involved. In addition, the provide a way of focusing or renewing the mandate on a particular issue of legitimizing major constitutional changes. For example the referendums held ahead of the creation of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh assembly. In addition, they can prevent dangerous divisions within political parties over controversial issues. This prevents governments collapsing and therefore provides greater continuity in government. This was shown by the way in which the 1975 referendum on UK membership of the EEC minimized the damage done by divisions within the Labour Cabinet. An additional pro-referendum argument is that they resolve issues in such a way that there is a final or at least long-term solution. The 1979 referendums resolved the devolution issue for 20 years.
However, they are also many arguments against the wider use of referendums. Firstly, they are inconsistent with representative democracy and undermine the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. In addition, far from encouraging participation regular use of referendums could lead to apathy and low turnouts that might distort the results. For example, the turnout in the 1997 referendum over the creation of a Welsh assembly was only 50%. In extreme cases this can result in the tyranny of an organized minority. In addition, they undermine collective responsibility in a cabinet. For instance during the referendum such as that in 1975 collective responsibility is suspended over the issue in question in order to allow full public debate of the issues involved. Also, most issues of too complicated to be condensed into a simple yes or no question. For example, should the decision over joining the euro be in hands of the general public or those with some grasp of economics? In addition, funding differentials between the yes and no camps might mean that the referendum is not played out on a level playing field. This was certainly true of the campaigns surrounding the 1975 referendum on EEC membership, where the yes camp was said to have outspent the no camp by 3 to 1.The wording in a referendum can also prove controversial. Governments can phrase questions in a way that makes a favourable result more likely. Some argue that the question posed in 1975, “Should the UK stay in the European Community?” encouraged a yes vote because people were more likely to vote in favour of the status quo. In addition, decisions are not always considered final. Governments sometimes go back again and again until they get the result they want. For example the creation of the a Scottish parliament was put to the vote twice, in 1979 and 1977.
In recent years referendums have been employed much more widely in most parts of the world. For example, in Eire a 1995 referendum legalized divorce. In addition, in Switzerland which averages four referendums a year, the people approved a decision to join the UN by 55% to 45% in 2002. Despite this referendums are believed by some to be incompatible with the UK system of government. In the 1940s Clement Attlee described referendums as “a device alien to all our traditions”. This statement reflects the fact that the UK is a “representative” democracy and the commitment that Britain has to the idea of parliamentary sovereignty, only parliament can cast a decisive vote on any issue. Therefore, within a representative democracy, referendums would appear to be at best unnecessary and at worst unhelpful. In addition the lack of established constitutional guidelines for the use of referendums as exists in Italy and Switzerland ensures that a significant degree of scepticism remains about the role of referendums in the UK.