The date has been set for the referendum considering the repeal of the eighth amendment of the Irish constitution. As the UK continues to experience polarisation generated by the EU debate, I can’t help doubting the value of referendums in representative democracies. I appreciate that it is constitutionally required if the eighth amendment were to be changed and perhaps there is a role for referendums in some circumstances, like ratifying peace treaties, but as a means of deciding complex, unchartered issues they have significant flaws.

Representative democracy closely links decision-making and execution with accountability, binding referendums dismantle this link as any future results are enshrined as “the will of the people” no matter how a government executes a decision or the long-term consequences. Careful deliberation and modelling of potential outcomes are replaced with emotive arguments and any warnings of possible repercussions can be dismissed as fear-mongering. In Dublin, aspects of confusion and contradiction about what exactly a repeal vote would mean are already apparent.

Referendums, like elections, also allow politicians to set the agenda rather than deal with uncomfortable issues. The DUP and Sinn Féin have long preferred campaigning to governing. Similarly, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar, an effective campaigning politician, has prioritised two referendums over dealing with an escalating homelessness crisis. Campaigns allow complex issues (e.g. how would a post-Brexit Irish border work?) to be replaced with emotive narratives about big, undefined concepts like sovereignty, freedom, or choice.

We need to unflinchingly address the core issues involved in public decisions and not be distracted by slogans worthy of Boris Johnson’s bus which promise a future utopia without answering the hard questions. Dismissing the key questions as political rabbit holes prevents serious discussion and ensures that we only ever find an audience with those who agree with us. The importance of the questions a voter in the upcoming Irish referendum must consider should not be downplayed; when does a human life begin, when is it worthy of legal protection, and what would the likely results be of constitutional change for society, for women and for future generations.

The burden of proof lies firmly with the campaign for constitutional change to show that a moment other than conception is the start of human life. Biologically speaking, the smallest embryo has a unique, complete human genetic make-up and is alive. The repeal movement needs to coherently explain why another factor such as consciousness, physical development or location should determine whether a human life should be legally protected. A clear model for an Ireland without the eighth amendment has to be assessed and the likeliest comparable models examined. Today Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world to be a mother or to be in your mother’s womb. Is it desirable for a post-repeal Ireland to be like the UK where one in five pregnancies end in abortions? Would it be desirable that Children with Down Syndrome are screened out before birth like in Iceland? Are all methods of abortion acceptable?

There is genuine common ground in the concerns expressed for women trapped in difficult and desperate circumstances. If the referendum results in better care for vulnerable women that should be celebrated, but to regard improvement as dependent on the repeal of the eighth amendment is to bestow the legal change with absurd expectations and strikes against the pattern of abortion provision elsewhere. Greater common ground and profitable discussion can only be had if we’re prepared to deal with the fundamental questions at stake. Poignantly, 25 May is recognised by many countries as International Missing Children’s Day – the same day Ireland will go to the ballot box for a vote which will define who is included or excluded by the Republic’s ambition to “cherish all our children equally.”