In the Commons debates on Brexit during the last fortnight, many MPs have found themselves voting for something they do not believe in. Instead of being their constituents’ “representative”, they now appear to be no more than the people’s “delegate”.

So, apart from arguing the merits of different kinds of Brexit, perhaps there is now also a need for another debate – on whether Britain should banish referendums. After all, until the 1970s, more or less the only use we made of them was to determine whether pubs should be allowed to open on a Sunday. Maybe their introduction has proved an innovation too far.

Four features of the EU referendum give cause for concern. First, the promise to hold one was only made because David Cameron found it politically convenient to do so. He hoped to head off a rise in Ukip support and calm the internal divisions on Europe in his party. But for those circumstances the ballot would never have been held.

Second, the campaign period was relatively short. Only five months elapsed between the proposed revised terms of membership negotiated by Cameron and the ballot, and in much of the country that period was heavily punctuated by local and devolved elections.

Third, unlike most previous referendums, voters were being invited to endorse the status quo rather than a proposal for change. Consequently, there was no detailed proposal as to what might happen if voters did vote to leave the EU, and the country has been left debating exactly what it did vote for in June last year.

Fourth, though often forgotten, the EU vote was the second referendum bite at the European cherry. The issue had supposedly been settled by the referendum Harold Wilson called in 1975. Evidently, holding a referendum does not necessarily end dispute and division about how the country should be governed. But, while the EU ballot was not perhaps the best advertisement for referendums, that does not mean we should abandon them entirely.

Referendums have been used in Britain during the last 40 years primarily to settle questions about how we should be governed – should Wales have devolution, should Scotland become independent, how should MPs be elected? These are crucial decisions – but ones where politicians themselves often have a vested interest, and thus are not necessarily particularly well placed to take them.

Meanwhile, democracy relies on the consent of the governed, that is, popular acceptance of the right of a government to pass laws. Setting up new institutions – or retaining existing ones – whose existence a majority opposes runs the risk that their decisions will no longer be respected. And, while decisive referendum outcomes are certainly preferable to close results, trying to perpetuate the status quo by insisting on a super-majority of, say, 60% support before any vote for constitutional change is followed through simply exacerbates that risk.

And on major constitutional issues, at least, voters seem to be up to the task of giving their verdict. They turned out aplenty for the EU referendum, and in so doing many clearly made up their own minds rather than following the advice of their political leaders.

So Britain should not banish referendums. When a major constitutional change is being proposed the consent of the people should be sought. But instead of being ad hoc affairs held at the whim of politicians, it is time to lay down some systematic rules about when a referendum should be held – and should not. Not allowing referendums to take place when there is no detailed proposal for the change in question might be a good place to start.