Referendums and the Case of Brexit

Abstract Referendums have become a prevalent democratic tool. While they can enhance direct citizen participation, critics argue they risk populism, oversimplification, and elite manipulation. Moreover, they have been viewed as incompatible with political constitutionalism in replacing parliamentary with popular sovereignty. This chapter looks at four types of referendum: constitutive, constitutional, international, and policy-focused. It contends that referendums on constitutive and constitutional issues can usefully supplement representative democracy when embedded within a parliamentary framework. Such referendums do not replace parliamentary with popular sovereignty but serve as checks and balances, especially on issues where legislators might be self-interested. The Brexit referendum exemplifies both the promise and pitfalls of referendums. Although criticized for involving misleading campaigns, a lack of inclusivity, and vague framing, it met a minimum threshold of democratic legitimacy. Moreover, it should not be regarded as expressing the ‘will of the people’—a muddled notion—and was in any case embedded within and constrained by parliamentary sovereignty, which legislated for its being held and ultimately was responsible for how to respond to the result. The weaknesses of the referendum relate more to the failings of the ‘Remain’ campaign and of those parties and MPs opposed to leaving to the EU on the terms proposed by the government to agree on an alternative.