I'm not entirely against referendums, I think there are cases in which they make sense. One is issues where it's not even really a political issue. Capital punishment for example. Another is where the question has significant constitutional consequences and a party seeks an additional mandate for their policy beyond a simple electoral mandate. Brexit could fit that category, in the same way that joining the EU did, but the change should be one the government is willing to take responsibility for implementing. It should be a supplement to their electoral mandate for a policy, not a vote to impose a responsibility on government it doesn't want to take. This was James Cameron's fundamental blunder.

Switzerland has another classic example of a failed ballot initiative. They voted in 2014 to limit migration from the EU, an initiative promoted by a party that was not in power. So again you had a government bound to implement a policy that was not their policy, which they were unable in practice to deliver. Who takes responsibility for that? It's just asking for trouble.

In California the legislature has been ham strung by a series of initiatives ring fencing spending on various areas such as education, and others limiting taxation in various ways squeezing the state budget. Of course give the electorate a vote on more spending and a vote on lower taxes, guess what happens.