The UK’s referendum on EU membership two years ago and Ireland’s referendum on abortion last Friday were truly momentous events. On the face of it, they were similar democratic exercises designed to ask the people for their preferences on a political issue of national or constitutional importance. The widespread welcome for the result in Ireland though has led some to attack those who criticised the blunt, populist instrument of a referendum when it came to deciding Brexit, who might now be celebrating the outcome of Ireland’s exercise in direct democracy.

This is a completely disingenuous argument. The contrast between the process and conduct of the two polls could not have been starker. Ireland’s written constitution is owned by the people and may only be altered following a people’s vote. The subject of Ireland’s referendum was an amendment inserted into the Irish constitution in 1983 – by referendum. But this clause (the eighth amendment) on the equality of right to life of “the unborn” with its mother was shrouded in legal uncertainty and ambiguity from the outset, and its consequences were profound for medical practice and for many Irish women. Successive Irish governments shied away from tackling these consequences.

But eventually, in 2016, a newly installed government committed to establishing a Citizens’ Assembly, consisting of a representative sample of 99 citizens which met over five months to address the issue. Deliberative democracy became a welcome addition to Ireland’s democratic toolkit. To the surprise of many, the assembly demonstrated that there was support for change including repealing the eighth amendment.

The recommendations which emerged were then considered by a cross-party parliamentary committee. Its hearings again heard expert evidence. This process intensified the public focus on the topic and enabled politicians to interrogate what was involved before the formal legislative phase. Following an intense period of deliberation, the government called a referendum which was accompanied by the publication of the heads of a bill on abortion which would be enacted in the event of a vote to repeal the contentious 1983 constitutional ban.

As a result of all this, the Irish electorate knew what it was voting on. Experts actively deliberated alongside citizens and politicians, answering questions and sharing their professional judgment and experience. The experts were not telling the Irish people or the government what to do, they were drawing on their training and experience to educate and inform.

By contrast, the Brexit referendum was signalled as early as January 2013 but contingent on the Conservative party winning a majority. The EU was a divisive issue within the Conservative party but was not a particularly salient issue for most of the public right up to the calling of the referendum. The logic of the vote was dictated by fear of the electoral success of Ukip and fissures within the Tory party itself. The UK government failed to engage in any preparatory educational process prior to the calling of the referendum and instead built a campaign so reliant on repeated warnings of the dire consequences of Brexit that it became known as Project Fear. The Leave campaign was not forced to outline in detail their desired model of post-Brexit relations with the EU. Aggressive support from the Eurosceptic press meant they got away with slogans. Meanwhile, remainers proved incapable of putting a positive case for membership.

The two referendum campaigns were very different. The campaign in Ireland was driven by massive mobilisation on the ground by both sides; door-to-door campaigning, meetings, endorsements and passionate discussions. Both politicians and civil society groups really engaged with the public on the issue, while the thousands of Irish people who were motivated to return from abroad to cast their ballot revealed a positive patriotism at work. In the event, turnout at 65% was the highest of any Irish referendum for decades.

In contrast, mobilisation in the UK happened after, not before, the vote and the country still remains deeply divided by age, education and location on Brexit. The executive and parliament appear overwhelmed by the complexity of what has been unleashed and, two years on, have yet to honestly inform the electorate of the costs and consequences of the decision that their 2016 referendum led to. If there is a people’s vote on the terms of departure, perhaps Britain could look across the water to learn from its smaller neighbour.

• Brigid Laffan is director of the global governance programme at the European University Institute, Florence