SITTING in on Christchurch’s referendum meeting reminded me of the talk surrounding other ‘local polls’ we have enjoyed or endured in recent times.

Brexit, and Scottish and Catalan independence are wildly different issues, and different in degree from the question facing Christchurch residents - whether to team up administratively with Bournemouth and Poole in a new ‘city by the sea’, or not.

But a lot of the arguments have the same flavour in all these cases, and give rise to some important questions about the spirit of democracy.

For holding a referendum, the cry is almost intrinsically anti-establishment.

Where an authority with a democratic mandate wishes to carry out a course of action, it will just get on with it. The referendum plea only arises where a sizeable body of people want something the authority opposes.

Thus arguments in favour tend to emphasise letting the people ‘have their say’, and those advocating it tend to decry the claim of the authority to have the majority on its side. They may be right in this, as with Brexit, or wrong, as with Scottish independence.

At the meeting, nine councillors (out of 24) opposed the poll.

They argued that the super council consultation had showed clear support for the merger policy across Dorset. The proponents said the survey was flawed, with leading questions and an intrinsic bias.

A poll, they said, was the only sure way to find out the truth.

Many of those who oppose Brexit, or what has become known as ‘hard’ Brexit, are eager to point out that the split was only 52/48. Indeed many such polls end up being very close, which isn’t really all that surprising.

I doubt there is a Brexiteer out there who doesn’t feel this is an uncomfortably small margin. Nevertheless, it would be a very one-eyed Remainer, or at least one with poor arithmetic, who tried to claim backing the 48 per cent view was democratic, however much they might believe it wise.

Some of Christchurch’s councillors were keen to point out that the local poll will be non-binding, and the decision will ultimately be made by the Government. Ergo this is a waste of time and money, they said.

The same was said of Brexit, that the EU would dictate terms, and that the Government is not obliged legally to proceed with it anyway.

However, once a referendum vote has been held, it will take a politician of some courage, and arrogance, to act against it.

A more blatant angle to this is evident in Catalonia, where their referendum was ‘illegal’ under Spain’s constitution.

A constitution explicitly binds the people of the present to the views of those in the past, it is highly questionable whether this can be considered democratic. In the same way, the argument that people elected via an imperfect system on a mandate to make decisions on many issues reflects the will of the demos on specific issues is hard to justify.

Criticism also focuses on whether the people voting might make the 'wrong' decision. Thus those opposed to Brexit, as with Scottish independence, often cite the array of economics experts and business figures who claim it will lead to the nation's ruin.

In Christchurch, many of those backing the super council plans argue the facts are plain, there is no debate to be had. The borough cannot survive on its own and is better off with Bournemouth and Poole than with Hampshire or whatever other alternative is mooted.

The notion of a 'wrong' decision in politics is always suspect, although of course it is possible for a choice to have unfortunate and potentially unforeseen consequences.

Rule by experts often in truth means rule by managers, who pick the opinions of the experts which match their own preconceptions, so a healthy scepticism of the official creed is often wise.

The referendum format will always be a controversial way of deciding the future direction of a people.

They are far from perfect, but at some point we as a society will need to decide whether we want to be ruled by managers, or to make decisions for ourselves, even if those decisions are sometimes 'wrong'.