Is referism any good?

As I understand Richard North's idea of referism, the state's budget would be subject to an annual referendum.

And, er, that's it?

First off, it's a blunt instrument. You could only vote Yes or No. So it would become an annual popularity contest.

If budget's rejected, what then? Can the incumbent party try again, or does there have to be a general election? What, another vote?

There's no sense that people want lots of blanket votes - which anyway would achieve nothing.

If I've misunderstood, I can trust Richard North to put me right.

A far preferable reform would be for people to be able to require a referendum. Would the Swiss or Californian models work here? Where the establishment was out of step with the citizens on a subject the citizens felt strongly about, they would be able to require a vote which would bind parliament - a more precise tool, and a reform which it would be much easier to campaign for.

Or have I misunderstood referism?