Professor Stephen Tierney, professor of constitutional theory, University of Edinburgh, asserted that referendums could be seen as ‘pure democracy’. He adds that it is unmediated by representatives and is a reminder that democratic authority finds its legitimacy in the consent of the people. Referendums are a way for the government to get consent of the people, or not to, without parliament intervening, making it as direct as possible. Although the UK is ‘democratic’, one could argue that as time has passed, we have less time to take decisions ourselves and leave government to make the majority of decisions for us. There are examples where the government has gone against the consensus of the electorate, such as the invasion of Iraq, raise of tuition fees and cuts to public services. In these situations, surely the government should use referendums to get a straightforward answer, and ensure they work as closely to the electorate as possible.
However, a greater use of referendums would eventually lead to apathy amongst the electorate. It is highly unlikely that you will receive 100% turnout on any referendum. Some referendums address issues of certain regions, such as the proposals for the Greater London Authority in 1998 and the regional assembly of North East England 2004. These produce low turnouts because they predominantly affect a minority of people and not the country as a whole. Low turnouts could go against the principles of democracy, as it is not reflecting the opinion of 100% of the electorate and lacks legitimacy. Turnout is falling in general elections alone and if there were more referendums the public would have a worse attitude towards voting. David Butler of Nuffield College, Oxford University raised the point that referendums can be used as a tactical device by the current government, when they are too worried about judgement on their own decisions or when they are confident that they will win it. It can be used as a ‘way out’ of embarrassment and a matter of strategic politics. 80% of referendums between 1973 and 2004 have agreed with the referendum question suggesting that the government uses referendums as a device to support their points as and when they like.
Furthermore, there are arguments against referendums, claiming that they favour elite groups rather than ordinary citizens. Referendums are rarely if not never free of influence by political parties, the media or independent groups. This could create an unfair arena on which citizen’s vote in referendums. This allows elitist groups to manipulate the decisions of citizens and alter the polls. Professor Butler referred to the first Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty where "a leading, flamboyant, rich man charged in and moved opinion really quite substantially in the opinion poll evidence and got a 'no' vote".
To conclude, I feel that Referendums are currently used on the wrong issues, and are used by the current government to avoid giving opinions on things they’d rather keep quiet about, like the troubles in Northern Ireland and Devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I think that they should only be used when there is a significant clash (large protests and excessive public concern) on Governmental decisions. The government could be forced to take a certain amount of referendums every five years, but this would probably just encourage them to use them at times that suit them and on unnecessary issues. I believe that there should not be a larger quantity of referendums, but they should cover a broader area of government. Perhaps referendums could be implemented when an e-petition has reached 5,000,000 signatures. This would be a good system because it would show a high desire for the referendum and that the turnout is likely to be high. In theory it may be down to the government to decide which issues are to be given a referendum, but in practice, this may not be the case.