After the mess and almost equal divide in the United kingdom’s public opinion on whether to stay in the European Union or exit it (Brexit) my fear is that we here are walking a road where angels fear to tread.

From what I can gauge there seems to be a similar divide on whether to go ahead with the cruise berthing facility as it is proposed or to hold a referendum on it.

As with the UK one, the for and the against alter the facts available, or not available, to suit the particular agenda they have adopted.

I have to ask the question, therefore, what is the purpose of electing a government if it is going to be ruled by referendums?

There are cases, of course, where governments need to gauge the people’s opinion, especially when there is dissidence within their own party ranks.This can also help to avoid riots and marches.

In the UK they set up an independent body to study the role of referendums and these are some of their key findings:

First, referendums have an important role to play within the democratic system, but how they interact with other parts of that system is crucial. They must be viewed as co-existing alongside, rather than replacing, representative institutions. They can be useful tools for promoting citizen participation in decision-making, but they are not the only, or necessarily the best, way of doing so.

■ Second, referendums should be conducted in a way that is fair and effective. The rules should enable a level playing field between the competing alternatives. Those rules should also empower voters to find the information they want from sources they trust, so that voters feel confident in the decisions

they reach.

■ Third, the regulation of referendums must keep up with the changing nature of political campaigning, particularly campaigning through social media.

Referendums have an important role to play within the democratic system. They are particularly suited to resolving fundamental questions of sovereignty and constitutional change. But referendums also have limits:

■ They cannot replace the institutions of representative democracy. Citizens do not have the time or the resources to participate in all the policy decisions necessary for the functioning of a complex modern democracy. Representatives can dedicate time to consider such issues in great detail, engage in deliberation with other representatives and make informed decisions on a wide range of topics. Representative institutions are also needed to provide for ‘joined up’ thinking across policy areas.

■ Referendums encompass one crucial element of democracy: deciding between options through voting. But other equally important dimensions of democracy – discussion, deliberation and compromise – are not intrinsic to referendums. Given these limits, careful thought should be given to how referendums fit into the wider democratic system:

Referendums should be conducted in line with two overarching objectives:

■ The alternatives should compete on a level playing field.

■ Voters should be able to find the information they want from sources they trust.

■ An inquiry should be conducted into the regulation of political advertising across

print, broadcast and online media, to consider what form regulation should take for each medium and whether current divergences of approach remain justified.

■ Imprints should be required on digital campaign materials, as on other forms of campaign materials.

■ A searchable repository of online political advertising should be developed, including information on when each advertisement was posted, to whom it was targeted, and how much was spent on it.

Additionally, when planning for the referendum itself and the preceding referendum campaign, the following questions should be addressed:

■ What can be done to reduce the risk of polarisation and lasting political divisions after the referendum?

■ What can be done to maximise the availability of high-quality information, and minimise the risk of misrepresentation and confusion?

■ Should a deliberative exercise for citizens be provided during the referendum campaign itself?

To read the whole report go to: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/sites/constitution-unit/files/182_-_independent_commission_on_referendums.pdf

Dr Adam Quinn, Senior Lecturer in International Politics, summed up the pros and cons of referendums as this:

“Referendum campaigns themselves can be savagely divisive, especially when the prospect of a narrow victory tempts campaigners to use every argument at their disposal. Political division in both the UK and Colombia has been markedly intensified by the 2016 campaigns there.”

As for my question, “Do the general public always know best?”

I will answer it myself? No. That is why we elect a government. The alternative is to be ruled by experts Those who know best.

The basic premise of democracy has always been that it doesn’t matter how much you know: you get a say because you have to live with the consequences of what you do. Voters should be around long enough to suffer for their own mistakes.

For more on this argument go to: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/01/why-replacing-politicians-with-experts-is-a-reckless-idea