The argument was not simply for or against more democracy: Yes voters cast direct votes as a remedy for political distance, while No voters feared that popular power could be captured or misused. No narrowly won, with the sharpest case on each side grappling with what referendums can—and cannot—ask the public to decide.
The most-respected Yes case accused representative government of failing its basic promise: “What we have now is not democracy.” Other Yes voters wanted safeguards, a hybrid system and a role for Parliament in explaining the choices. One supporter was strikingly unromantic about the risks: “I've put yes ideologically, but I imagine it would be a disaster.”
The most-respected No case challenged the Swiss comparison, arguing that the system there handles a different class of question: “Nobody is asking them about migration, Climatranistine, independence, Brexit or hanging.” Other No voters worried about wealthy campaigners flooding the process, or said Parliament should be strengthened rather than bypassed. The Yes case made the accountability argument; it did not settle how to prevent organised money or misleading campaigns from shaping a vote.
That puts the debate inside a live argument about parliamentary sovereignty and direct popular mandate. Even some Yes voters looked for a bridge between them: “Government should be there to debate and educate. Then the people should decide.” The disagreement was over where that bridge should end.
The narrow result leaves the central question intact: who gets to decide when the public is asked?
42 Opinions
... 🤣 I don't want your childrens future in the hands of: 'Fact checking is too much labour' & 'A 50:50 split' is admirable But I will go home today knowing that most of us are animal lovers, and that's good enough to come back tomorrow. 🤓
I think we should adopt the exact historical opposite.
There are a lot of policies that are quite popular, but a little bit of analysis shows would come with trade offs that would mean substantial harm to economic growth, higher cost of living, or both. A sitting government will often avoid these despite them being popular because they know they’d be more likely to lose the next election due to these negative tradeoffs. Giving a direct vote creates more risk of tradeoffs being ignored
People need to take responsibility for the effects of political decisions. In my view, the populace has lost its ability to make good decisions because we are too far removed from the consequences. Direct democracy creates a feedback loop in which the negative consequences of poor decisions are more personal. Arguments that recent examples of subjectively poor judgement in referenda are arguments against it don't hold, nor does shifting the responsibility to politicians.
A very good idea
no - just look what the country did last time they were invited to express their collective opinion
This site shows clearly that this would be a bad idea.
Done well, this would be transformative. The idea is that we express our desires, and the government handles implementation. But as a society, we don't understand the concept of "loser's consent". The willingness of a losing candidate and their voters to accept the official outcome of an election or political decision, thereby recognising the winner's legitimate authority: Brexit QED
It would be a fast descent into madness.
The Swiss system is for constitutional amendments, vetoing new laws before they pass and quirky local laws mostly about cows. Nobody is asking them about migration, Climatranistine, independence, Brexit or hanging. So Switzerland isn't a sign that referenda could work for the sorts of issues the UK would want to endlessly vote on.