ARGUMENTS FOR CITIZEN REFERENDA IN THE EU

1. Give the People A Voice

EU policies that impact on 500 million people are drawn up by distant, un-elected bureaucrats, validated in ministerial meetings dominated by a few powerful nations and rubber stamped by MEPs. Referendums give the people a voice, allowing them to impose directly democratic checks and balances on the shift of power to Brussels.

2. Legitimize EU Policy

More referendums would serve to legitimize European integration. Instead of citizens feeling alienated by the decisions of faceless officials in Brussels, referendums would give policies the stamp of popular approval. Voters would feel more attached to Europe and its policies if they were given a chance to shape them.

3. Bridge the Gap between Brussels and the People

Many Europeans neither know, nor care, what’s going on in Brussels. Apathy with mainstream politics is a growing problem reflected in falling voter turnout and support for extremists. Referendum campaigns can energize public opinion and make sure citizens are fully informed about EU policies.

4. Better Policies

By imposing truly democratic checks and balances on politicians’ and bureaucrats’ decisions referendums produce policies that better reflect the needs of ordinary people.

Refutal of Arguments against referenda

1. Citizens fail to understand the complex issues: First of all, it is inconsistent to trust citizens to be able to choose between parties and politicians in elections but not between issues in referenda. If anything, the former choice is more difficult as one must form expectations about politicians' choices on issues forthcoming in the future. Secondly, the voters need not have any detailed knowledge about the issues at stake, Rather, they must only grasp the main questions involved. These main questions are not of a technical nature but involve decisions of principle which a voter is equally qualified to take as are the politicians. Thirdly, the general intelligence and qualification of politicians should not be overrated. They can hardly be considered to be much and consistently superior to other people. Moreover, the average member of parliament has little choice; he or she is normally forced to vote according to what the party superiors and some few specialists have decided before. Finally, a number of institutions have emerged in direct democracies helping citizens to take reasoned decisions. The parties and interest groups make suggestions of how to decide which the citizens may consider. Even more importantly, the discourse in the pre-referendum stage brings the main aspects forth and puts them into perspective.
2. Citizens have little interest in participating: This is  a mistaken conclusion for three reasons: Firstly, the vote participation is not always so low. When the citizens feel that the issue is important the vote participation strongly rises. Secondly, high vote participation is not necessarily a good thing. Citizens are perfectly rational not to participate when they find the issues unimportant or when they are undecided. It could even be argued that it is socially beneficial that citizens do not participate under these conditions but rather leave the decision to those for whom the issue matters. Vote participation then reflects citizens’ preference intensities which makes the vote socially more valuable. Thirdly, it would be naive to think that freely chosen vote participation in parliaments is much different from how citizens behave with respect to popular referenda. Today’s members of parliament are highly specialized and seriously consider the pros and cons of few issues. In the case of all other issues they (have to) follow the dictate of the party leadership, i.e. do not cast a voluntary vote. This is reflected in the often extremely low participation in parliamentary session. The members of parliament have to be herded together from the lobby or their offices to cast the dictated vote.
3. Citizens are easy to manipulate: It is always true that the rich and well-organized groups wield more power. The crucial question is whether they have more or less power in a direct than in a representative democracy. It is well known that well-organized and financed pressure groups exert considerable power over the politicians sitting in parliament and in government. It may even be argued that it is cheaper to influence the small number of legislators and government politicians than the total electorate.
4. Citizens are prone to decide emotionally: This charge must be considered in a comparative perspective. There is little reason to believe that politicians are less subject to emotions. After all, parliaments are known to have highly emotional debates, sometimes even erupting into fist fights. For that reason, many parliaments have formal procedures to consider a proposal two or even three times, with considerable time elapsing in between. The same holds for popular referenda. Before taking the vote there must be time for intensive discussion in which the various sides of a question can be brought up. This strongly increases the chance of a decision dominated by rational aspects.
5. There are too many referenda confusing the voters : This is indeed a situation to be avoided. However, the number of referenda put to the vote can be steered by the number of signatures required for an initiative or optional referendum. If the number of issues to be decided about gets too large, the number of signatures required can be raised. Such decision should be taken by a constitutional referendum to prevent that the classe politique fixes such high a number of signatures that referenda become improbable.
6. Political leadership is impossible : This conclusion does not necessarily hold. In a direct democracy the politicians are forced to explain their policies to the citizens. If they can give good reasons why they propose to undertake such a seemingly unpopular policy the citizens will not oppose it. There are many examples where citizens are prepared to support policies burdening them provided the politicians make an effort to explain why the sacrifice is necessary to improve the situation over the long term.
7. Referenda are inadequate for major issues: The opposite position makes more sense. Major issues can be reduced to the essential content. Evaluation then is not a matter of (scientific) expertise but of value judgements. Following methodological individualism, only the citizens may be the final judges when it comes to preferences, and a substitution by representatives is, at best, a second best solution. As the politicians have a systematic incentive to deviate from the voters' preferences, a substitution leads to biased outcomes.
8. Referenda hinder progress: It may well be true that many new propositions are rejected in referenda but this does not mean that this constitutes a disadvantage. That proposals contain new ideas is no proof of their quality. Indeed, the citizens are right in rejecting them when they are in favor of the ‘classe politique’. The concept of 'bold, new' solutions is not rarely the result of technocratic thinking and of a planning mentality. They strengthen the politicians' and bureaucrats' position but need not be in the voters' interest. Referenda are a well-proven procedure to break dead locks in societal decision making and in this sense are progressive. There are cases in which an issue is difficult to resolve in parliament and by the government, and where a referendum helps to clear the issue. In a direct democracy heated issues may be brought to a solution acceptable to a large majority.
9. Referenda destroy civil rights:  This is not necessarily the case. Most importantly, if there are economic, social and political cross cleavages no part of the citizens always is in the majority and therefore will be careful not to antagonize other social groups.
10. Referenda are expensive: The administrative cost of referenda are not high because several propositions can be bundled at one weekend, and citizens can be asked to actively participate in organizing the vote and counting the votes. While the citizens drafted suffer some opportunity cost, such a participation has the advantage of getting them more directly involved in governing their state which tends to raise their sense for citizens' duties. Secondly, the administrative cost of running referenda is immaterial compared to their major advantage, namely to significantly reduce the deviation of political decisions from individual preferences.