You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The referendum is the most powerful instrument of direct democracy available in the UK, and its growing use over the past half-century represents one of the most significant developments in the country's political life. A referendum asks the electorate to decide a single question directly, bypassing the elected representatives who ordinarily take decisions on the people's behalf. In a system as deeply rooted in representative democracy and parliamentary sovereignty as the UK's, this is a striking departure, and it raises a fundamental question that runs through the whole of this topic: when, if ever, should the people themselves decide a question rather than the Parliament they elect? The 2016 vote to leave the European Union — the most consequential referendum in modern British history — has made that question more urgent and more contested than ever, and a sophisticated answer treats referendums not as a neutral tool but as a genuine tension at the heart of UK democracy.
Referendums are not held in the UK as a matter of routine. There is no constitutional rule requiring them, and they have been reserved overwhelmingly for questions of fundamental constitutional importance — membership of the European Community and then Union, devolution to the nations and regions, and the electoral system itself. Understanding both the pattern of their use and the arguments surrounding them is essential for Component 1, Section A, where the place of direct democracy within a representative system is a recurring theme.
It is worth registering at the outset how recent and how rapid this development has been. For most of its history the UK held no nationwide referendums at all; the device was long regarded with suspicion by constitutionalists, who saw in it a threat to the sovereignty of Parliament and an echo of the plebiscites used by continental dictators to manufacture consent. The first nationwide referendum came only in 1975, and the real proliferation — devolution, the electoral system, Scottish independence, EU membership — belongs to the period since the late 1990s. In the space of a single generation, then, the referendum has moved from being an alien and distrusted instrument to an accepted, if still controversial, means of settling the largest constitutional questions. This rapid normalisation is itself significant, because it has altered the constitution by practice rather than by deliberate design, establishing a convention that fundamental change requires popular endorsement without ever resolving the deeper question of how that popular verdict relates to the sovereignty of Parliament.
A referendum is a vote in which the whole electorate is invited to approve or reject a specific proposal, typically phrased as a binary choice and usually concerning a constitutional or major policy question. It is the principal modern expression of direct democracy, allowing citizens to make a decision themselves rather than delegating it to elected intermediaries.
A crucial feature of UK referendums is their constitutional status. In strict law they are generally advisory rather than legally binding, a direct consequence of parliamentary sovereignty: because Parliament is the supreme legal authority, a popular vote cannot legally bind it, and in formal terms the result is a recommendation that Parliament chooses whether to implement. In political practice, however, governments and Parliaments have treated referendum results as binding, regarding it as politically and democratically unthinkable to ignore a clear expression of the popular will. This gap between legal advisory status and political binding force is itself a fertile source of controversy, as the long parliamentary struggle to implement the 2016 result demonstrated. The position is best understood as one in which a referendum is legally advisory but politically binding — a distinction that sounds academic until a result and the views of a parliamentary majority diverge, at which point it becomes the very fault line along which a constitutional crisis can open. It also distinguishes the UK from states with codified constitutions, where referendums on fundamental questions are often legally binding by design, their status settled in advance rather than left to convention and political judgement.
A referendum is a direct popular vote on a single, defined question. In the UK such votes are usually advisory in law, because Parliament remains sovereign, yet they are treated as binding in political practice.
Because there is no constitutional rule requiring referendums in the UK, it is worth asking why governments choose to hold them, since the motives are rarely as straightforward as a disinterested wish to consult the people. Several distinct reasons recur, and recognising the political calculation behind a referendum is a more analytical approach than treating it simply as an exercise in direct democracy.
The first and most respectable reason is to secure direct popular consent for a fundamental constitutional change. Decisions that alter the very structure of the state — transferring power to a devolved legislature, changing the electoral system, or determining membership of a supranational union — are felt to require a sanction beyond an ordinary parliamentary majority, and a referendum supplies it. On this view, referendums entrench major changes by giving them a popular foundation that a future government cannot lightly reverse, since to overturn a decision of the people directly would itself demand exceptional justification.
A second, less elevated, reason is party management. Both the 1975 and 2016 referendums on Europe were called in significant part to contain deep divisions within the governing party: Harold Wilson used the 1975 vote to hold a fractured Labour Party together over Europe, and David Cameron promised the 2016 vote partly to manage Conservative Euroscepticism and to neutralise the threat from UKIP. A government may also hold a referendum to discharge a manifesto or coalition commitment, as with the 2011 AV referendum, which was a condition extracted by the Liberal Democrats in the 2010 Coalition negotiations. Finally, a referendum can be a way of resolving an issue that representative institutions cannot settle, lending a decisive popular verdict to a question on which Parliament is deadlocked or unwilling to take responsibility, or of legitimising a contested change by demonstrating that it rests on the consent of the people and not merely the preference of the governing party.
Identifying these motives matters because they bear on evaluation: a referendum called to settle a genuine constitutional question of identity or membership has a stronger democratic claim than one called primarily to manage a party's internal quarrels, and the strongest answers distinguish the two rather than treating all referendums alike.
The UK's experience of referendums, though now significant, is relatively recent: the first nationwide referendum was held only in 1975. The table below sets out the most important votes and their results, which students should be able to recall accurately.
| Year | Question | Result | Turnout |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1975 | Should the UK remain in the European Economic Community? | Yes (67.2%) | 64.0% |
| 1997 | Should there be a Scottish Parliament? | Yes (74.3%) | 60.4% |
| 1997 | Should there be a Welsh Assembly? | Yes (50.3%) | 50.1% |
| 1998 | Do you support the Good Friday Agreement? | Yes (71.1%) | 81.1% |
| 2004 | Should there be an elected regional assembly for the North East? | No (77.9%) | 47.7% |
| 2011 | Should the UK adopt the Alternative Vote for general elections? | No (67.9%) | 42.2% |
| 2014 | Should Scotland be an independent country? | No (55.3%) | 84.6% |
| 2016 | Should the UK remain a member of the EU or leave the EU? | Leave (51.9%) | 72.2% |
Several patterns are worth drawing out. The 1975 EEC referendum, called by Harold Wilson's Labour government largely to manage deep divisions within his own party, produced a clear Yes to continued membership and was the first nationwide referendum in British history — a significant constitutional innovation, since it established the principle that the people might be consulted directly on a fundamental question. The 1997 devolution referendums delivered the popular consent on which the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly were built, and the contrast between them is instructive: Scotland endorsed devolution decisively, on a clear turnout, whereas Wales did so only by the very narrowest of margins (50.3% to 49.7%) on a turnout barely above half, giving the Welsh settlement a notably weaker initial mandate. The 1998 Good Friday Agreement referendum showed referendums used to secure cross-community consent for a peace settlement in Northern Ireland, a role of particular constitutional delicacy.
The 2011 referendum on replacing First Past the Post with the Alternative Vote — a condition of the 2010 Coalition agreement — saw the proposal clearly rejected, with around 68% voting No on a low turnout of just 42.2%; the low engagement with a technical question about the voting system stands in sharp contrast to the great constitutional set-pieces. The 2014 Scottish independence referendum returned a No to independence by roughly 55%–45% on a remarkable turnout of 84.6%, the highest for any major vote in the modern era; it is often held up as the model of how a referendum should be conducted, with a long campaign, extensive public debate, and the participation of 16- and 17-year-olds for the first time. And the 2016 EU referendum produced a narrow but decisive vote to Leave, by roughly 52%–48%, on a turnout of 72.2%. The contrast in turnout between, say, the 84.6% of the Scottish independence vote and the 42.2% of the AV referendum is itself analytically important, because it bears directly on the legitimacy of each result: a decision endorsed by a large, engaged electorate carries an authority that a decision taken on a low turnout cannot match, and this is one reason why the AV result, though clear, settled the electoral-reform question with less finality than its margin might suggest.
The 2016 referendum on EU membership is the most significant and controversial referendum in modern British history, and a detailed grasp of it is indispensable. It was called by David Cameron's Conservative government, in part to settle a long-running Eurosceptic split within the party and to see off the electoral threat from UKIP.
The Leave campaign argued that the UK should "take back control" of its laws, borders, and money; that levels of immigration under EU freedom of movement were too high; and that, freed from the EU, the UK could strike its own trade deals. The campaign's most contested claim, that the UK sent £350 million a week to the EU which could instead fund the NHS, was widely disputed as misleading because it ignored the rebate and EU spending returned to the UK. The Remain campaign argued that EU membership underpinned economic stability and access to the single market, that leaving would damage trade and jobs, and that membership brought wider benefits in security, research funding, and cooperation.
The result was a vote to Leave by 51.9% to 48.1% on a turnout of 72.2% — a clear but narrow majority that exposed deep geographical and demographic divisions, with England and Wales voting to leave while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain.
The 2016 referendum illustrates the central difficulty of direct democracy in a representative system: a single binary verdict of high popular legitimacy proved extraordinarily hard to translate into the detailed, negotiated settlement that complex policy requires.
The aftermath is as instructive as the vote itself. The result triggered years of parliamentary deadlock over the terms of Brexit, during which the advisory-versus-binding tension played out in full as a Parliament containing a Remain-leaning majority sought to implement a Leave verdict. Three Prime Ministers — Cameron, May, and Johnson — left office in circumstances bound up with Brexit. The 2019 general election was dominated by the issue, returning Boris Johnson on a "Get Brexit Done" platform, and the UK formally left the EU in 2020. The episode is therefore the single most powerful case study both for the strengths of referendums (high legitimacy, decisive resolution of a question politicians had ducked for decades) and for their weaknesses (oversimplification, division, and the difficulty of enacting a binary mandate).
The Brexit saga brought to the surface a deep and unresolved tension in the UK constitution between referendums and parliamentary sovereignty, and a strong answer can use it to illuminate the whole topic. In strict legal theory, sovereignty rests with Parliament, and a referendum result is merely advisory; Parliament could, in law, have declined to implement the 2016 verdict. In democratic and political theory, however, a clear vote of the whole people seems to carry an authority superior to that of the representatives the people elect, so that for Parliament to override a referendum would itself be profoundly undemocratic. The two principles — sovereignty of Parliament and sovereignty of the people — pointed in opposite directions, and the years of deadlock after 2016 were, at bottom, an attempt to reconcile them.
The courts were drawn into this tension. In the first Miller case (2017), the Supreme Court held that the government could not trigger the formal process of leaving the EU using the royal prerogative alone but required the authority of an Act of Parliament — a ruling that reasserted parliamentary sovereignty even in the face of a referendum mandate, on the basis that the referendum itself had not specified the means of withdrawal. The episode demonstrates that referendums have not displaced parliamentary sovereignty so much as introduced a rival source of legitimacy that sits awkwardly alongside it. This is one reason why some constitutional reformers argue that, if referendums are to be used at all, their status and triggers should be clearly codified, so that the relationship between the people's direct verdict and Parliament's legal supremacy is settled in advance rather than improvised in the heat of a crisis. The unresolved nature of this relationship is itself a significant comment on the UK's uncodified constitution.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.