The alternative to such arrangements would be for Parliament to decide the matter. But Parliament's authority to make any decisions comes only from the people who elected its members. Without public support, its decisions are undemocratic and - in the traditional sense of the word - authoritarian, a declaration that government is there for the people's good, and its decisions need not reflect wider public opinion. Supporters of a referendum ask how any government have a right to impose permanent constitutional conditions and obligations on a people opposed to such measures. If, on the other hand, the majority are not opposed to the Euro, then a referendum to clarify this should not be a problem. In both cases, a referendum ensures that the public will prevails.
For many opponents of a referendum, it is not so much the significance of the decision that motivates their viewpoint as the complexity of the issue itself. To argue that it is too complex for ordinary people to understand sufficiently may seem patronising, but it is also logical. When a design decision has to be made about a bridge, one does not put the question to majority vote. Instead, the matter is decided by an engineer. When a difficult medical decision has to be made about treatment of an illness, it is a doctor to whom one turns. It follows that when a decision involving the constitutional and political future of the United Kingdom and its most esoteric economic circumstances is to be taken, comparative expertise and specialised knowledge should be sought. It can be found in the elected representatives of the British people, each of whom chose to devote themselves to finding the answer to these difficult questions and making the case for those answers.
To leave such matters to ordinary people may seem more respectful of the public will, but with so many unable to make an informed choice, it is placing the decision in the wrong hands. That referenda are any more democratic can also be challenged. Everyone in the House of Commons is there only because they were able to win the most votes in their constituency. They were elected to work for their constituents and represent their interests. Should they displease their constituents, they will soon find themselves out of office. To suggest, therefore, that when such people make a decision it is anything other than entirely democratic, is contrary to all that being an elected representative is about.
A further argument in favour of a referendum can be made based on the contrast between the authority of a referendum as against the authority of a temporary parliamentary majority. The first, and last, nationwide referendum, settled the issue in question in a way that parliamentary decisions alone could not. By allowing British people to decide whether or not to stay a member of the European Common Market, the government of the time ensured greater authority for those who supported membership, and a weakened case for their opponents. Every election returns a different parliaments, and each one has as much authority as any other, with the right to overturn any acts and decisions made by previous parliaments. A referendum is different because it shows the public will in a starker way - not in terms of a selection of representatives, but directly. Therefore, while one parliament's decisions can be disputed by the next, a decision made at a referendum is usually accepted by both sides for some time to come. According to this view, a "Yes" vote in a referendum would give much greater legitimacy than any parliamentary division, ensuring as much authority for pro-Europeans over this matter as they gained in 1975 in the Common Market referendum. On the other hand, a "No" vote in a referendum would equally have a much greater finality than that of a temporary parliamentary majority, whose members, and so whose views, change every four years or so. The parliamentary alternative could mean endless debates after every election, until a majority finally decided to join. Supporters of a referendum therefore claim that both eurosceptic and europhile camps should be with them.
Opponents of a referendum see such a position as setting a dangerous precedent and as being inconsistent with almost all of the country's democratic history. For centuries it has been the will of the British Parliament that has determined the fate of the country, and they see a referendum as a direct threat to that. What is the point in having a parliament, they ask, if questions are to be put to referendum? The result of the parliamentary vote is sure to match that of the referendum, turning the nation's key democratic body into a rubber-stamp. Even if referenda are limited to key constitutional questions, this still undermines the sovereignty of parliament. If deciding questions as complex as a European single currency is not their job, what is? Why should anyone seek to become an MP if the main functions of that position are to be given over to others? The salaries talented professionals can earn in the private sector already dwarf those offered by a political career. It can be argued that to take away the most intellectual and consequential parts of the position would further drive the most talented individuals out of politics. It is hard to deny that there is a difficulty in a system that deems indirect democracy to be fine most of the time, but in special cases to be insufficiently democratic. Referenda, therefore, threaten parliamentary sovereignty.
It is the politicised nature of Members of Parliament that worries supporters of a referendum. While most may know much about the issue and have the national interest at heart, it is perfectly reasonable to think that too many will vote the party line, seeking to ingratiate themselves with the party leadership or. their own party. If politicians were interested only in the national interest, this argument would not have its power, but the reality is that they face rival pressures of the desire to advance themselves, to stay popular with their party and to keep their seat. The final of these pressures may seem a good thing even to opponents of a referendum, but if one is to say that MPs' perceptions of the national interest should correspond to the feeling within their constituencies, why not go all the way and simply have a referendum, allowing everyone to have their say directly? Careerism is too much of a fear for those who want a referendum on the euro. They worry that the question in politicians' minds will not be "What is best for the future of this country?" but "What is best for the advancement of my career?".
Indirect control, by definition, has its disadvantages, opponents of a referendum admit. But they also maintain that its advantages outweigh them. In the case of the euro, this gives an important option to the electorate: to reward or punish those who make the decisions that affect them as they see fit. By taking the decisions directly, ordinary people must - without expertise - predict the consequences of these decisions and hope for the best. But through parliamentary democracy, the situation is different: every few years such decisions are up for renewal: people are allowed to change their minds, to reward those with greater insight than themselves, and turf out those who bought them misery. If the British people vote for the euro and it is disastrous, they can do little but moan. Equally, if they vote against membership and realise too late how great the benefits would have been, they can do no more than make "if only" statements. But if the decision is made for them by people they choose, then that is a very different matter. They can punish supporters of the euro at the ballot box, or give them huge majorities, depending on how successful membership is. Direct democracy, then, leaves people with no one to pressure, no one to control. Such pressures should be welcomed by good politicians, and the need to be right and to take decisions responsibly gives their positions meaning. Removing this, anti-referendum people can argue, is to undermine the democratic traditions of this country.
As none deny the gravity of the decision to be taken on the euro, it is unsurprising that supporters and opponents of a referendum on the issue both take the matter seriously. For supporters, it is a straight-forward matter of trusting the people to make the best decisions for themselves, and making them responsible for their own fate. For opponents, a referendum is a threat to the very concept of direct democracy and parliamentary decision-making, undermining parliamentary sovereignty and putting the complex decisions in the wrong hands. Ultimately, whether one agrees with one side or the other depends on how much wisdom one imparts to the ordinary man or woman in the street, and to the typical MP, and on whether one sees indirect democracy as sufficiently superior to direct democracy that politicians should make even the most important decisions for the public.
