Mohammed Amin is Chairman of the Conservative Muslim Forum. He writes in a personal capacity.

In 1945, Clement Attlee called referendums un-British and a “device of dictators and demagogues“. Margaret Thatcher quoted him with approval when speaking in Parliament in 1975 about the referendum that Harold Wilson was proposing, and which was later held, on the UK’s EEC membership.

I believe whole history books could be written about the abuse of referendums overseas.

In my view, referendums fall into two categories:

  1. The opportunity to choose between the status quo and “a pig in a poke.”
  2. A choice between the status quo and a completely specified alternative.

“A pig in a poke” referendums

While the status quo is always known, in such referendums the alternative one is being asked to vote for is not completely specified. They are the equivalent of “Please sign here to sell me your house. I will tell you later what I am going to pay you.”

The 2014 Scottish independence referendum asking “Should Scotland be an independent country?” falls into this category.

The SNP asked voters to say “Yes” without being told what currency Scotland would use; if it used the pound the terms of that use; and whether it would be a member of the European Union. To ask citizens to vote in the absence of this information was, at its most fundamental, an abuse of the democratic process.

Before asking Scottish citizens to vote at all, there should have been a completely negotiated agreement between the UK and Scotland, ratified by the UK Parliament and needing only a result in a Scottish referendum to come into force, without requiring any further negotiations. Furthermore, there should have been a clear statement obtained from the organs of the EU on whether an independent Scotland would become an EU member (and if so precisely how and when) or whether it would have to apply for membership from scratch like any other non-EU country.

For its own political reasons, the SNP chose not to go down the route of negotiate first and decide later. However, it was a disgrace for the UK government to be complicit in such a cavalier treatment of the Scottish people.

A choice between the status quo and a completely specified alternative

The 2011 Alternative Vote referendum falls into this category. Voters knew exactly how Parliamentary elections would be conducted in future, both if they chose to retain the status quo, or if they voted for change in accordance with the referendum question.

However, this referendum illustrates the other problem with referendums. Especially with apparently dry technical questions, people often do not vote on the question being asked but cast their vote for other reasons. The campaign against change successfully converted the referendum in the minds of many citizens into a plebiscite on the entirely different question “Do you like (or trust) Nick Clegg?” rather than a choice between voting systems.

I have not forgotten one of my relatives saying to me  in early 2016 regarding the EU referendum that she was inclined to vote “Leave” in order to “Stick it to David Cameron”. Every citizen is of course entitled to vote for any reason they wish, but the consequences of referendums are often much more permanent than the consequences of electing one more member of Parliament from a particular party.

The biggest problem with referendums

Even when the referendum question is properly specified, a referendum offers voters a binary choice without any consideration of the consequences that potentially flow from the choices.

A good example is Proposition 13 which voters of California passed in 1978 to reduce property taxes. Voters were not asked to consider how taxes related to state spending or how other taxes levied by California should be adjusted. For those able to access it, I recommend the 2009 Economist article about California: “The ungovernable state” which explains how the ability for citizens to launch referendums has impaired good government in California.

Concluding comments

Even though referendums sometimes produce results that I approve of (legalisation of cannabis usage by some American states), I still believe that they should be dispensed with entirely. Instead all such decisions should be made by the legislature which is able to weigh properly the alternative courses of action.

Accordingly, I was very pleased when the Australian Parliament refused to hold a referendum on gay marriage, considering instead that this matter should be resolved by Parliament.

The only exception to my complete prohibition of referendums that I would make is that if the UK ever adopts a written constitution (which I believe it should), I believe that it could only be entrenched by a referendum since no Parliament can bind its successor.

Obviously, the last thing I want is a referendum “Should the UK have a written constitution YES/NO.” Instead, Parliament should produce a fully written constitution, approve it, and then put that text to the UK people for approval and set an appropriate majority to be achieved for the change from the status quo to come automatically into effect if the required votes are received.