“The debate around “British values” is a distraction which has done the cause for a written constitution few favours but I don’t see why it should be a particular obstacle. All a written constitution would do is set out the framework defining and limiting the powers of each arm of the state.”

The thing is, arms of the State have a way of evolving out of limitations, even if they are intended to be held in check. Written constitutions can also limit arms of the State in ways that, upon writing, they were not strictly intended to. I think all of this has the potential to confuse debate, by viewing written constitutions as “superior” pieces of legislation that are somehow superior in quality to mere laws. I think it’s far better to limit power through the normal legislative process — as Labour did HRA-style, and not make such a fuss about it.

The fact is, actually, that even the HRA has proved incredibly controversial — to the extent that its future is still in doubt, idiotic though the proposed Bill of Rights is (which would appear to be *less* like a bill of rights than the HRA itself is — how many bills of rights do you know that have “guidance notes” for judges?). The fuss over the European Constitution and, subsequently, the Lisbon treaty shows that these types of legislation kick up far more fuss among the public and the tabloids than they would as ordinary bills.

So I guess I’m open to a written constitution, but I have big worries that it could kick up a huge stink that the normal legislative process wouldn’t.

The debate around “British values” is a distraction which has done the cause for a written constitution few favours but I don’t see why it should be a particular obstacle. All a written constitution would do is set out the framework defining and limiting the powers of each arm of the state. Any values written into it should ideally be universal, not especially British (there is nothing especially “French” about “liberté, égalité, fraternité” or “American” about “life, liberties and the pursuit of happiness”).

Ah, well I have no objection to it in that case.

“I’m rather less sceptical of Initiative and Referendum systems than you are. Despite the problems it has with its system on occasion California is a successful world-beating economy in its own right, so it hasn’t done too badly out of it (ditto Switzerland).”

Are you saying this has arisen out of the intiative and referendum system? I don’t know about that; what I do know is that the I&R system recently made California come very close to being the first State in US history to declare bankruptcy, because some idiots thought it was clever to draft a law specifying that 2/3 of the legislature had to approve a budget.

The I&R system goes against the point of representative democracy in my book — which is to combine democracy with qualified legislating, by electing people to dedicate themselves to the job. I’m much more open to a Swiss-style system where it’s about whether or not to ratify such a law rather than actual initiation, although I think this can be abused as well.

The main problem is that you can have too much ballot democracy — which can endanger it, by leading to referenda being dominated by interest groups. Though I can see how it might prove re-invigorating, I think we have to be very careful when considering this sort of thing.

“That said, I would rather have systems of participatory democracy lead to a dialogue between Parliament and the people and a check on the former, not as an alternative means to legislate.”

Ditto. I think, along with many other of the Carswell/Hannan ideas, it’s attempting to fix a problem by looking in the wrong place.

As for a written constitution, wouldn’t it be rather difficult to come up with one enough people have ‘faith’ in? I don’t know whether I speak for other British people, but I have big trouble even trying to think of having faith in a single document to communicate elusive ‘British values’. I’m open to a more entrenched version of the HRA, however, for specitic rights.

I’m rather less sceptical of Initiative and Referendum systems than you are. Despite the problems it has with its system on occasion California is a successful world-beating economy in its own right, so it hasn’t done too badly out of it (ditto Switzerland). That said, I would rather have systems of participatory democracy lead to a dialogue between Parliament and the people and a check on the former, not as an alternative means to legislate. And it isn’t a route we should consider going especially far down without a written constitution.

Well, quite. Isn’t this a little similar to Blair’s path with things like Constitutional Reform? Blair professed it to be “boring”, but continued elements of Smith’s agenda for political convenience.

Cameron strikes me as Eurosceptic, yes — but not obsessed with the question of sovereignty to the same degree as the hardline Eurosceptics in his party are. Thus I can understand his reaction to the Lisbon treaty, and the fact that he didn’t really have a lot of wriggle-room — trying to defuse the referendum issue, as well as trying to appear like he wasn’t going for renegotiation in an impractical way, was a pretty difficult task.

My own objection is to the idea of Citizens’ initiatives in general — rather than the Lisbon system specifically. I can’t help thinking of all the trouble it’s caused in California. However, if what you say is true, it doesn’t seem like anything too dangerous.

My problem is that I doubt Cameron’s intentions here. I don’t believe he really gives two hoots about parliamentary sovereignty; I just think he is attempting to carve out for himself a path of least resistence. And in doing so he is paying a lot of lip service to some very silly ideas within the Conservative Party which really need to be challenged instead of indulged.

Incidentally, regarding EU citizens’ initiatives, the system in Lisbon is only really agenda initiative – there is no referendum process at the end of it. As such, I can’t really what objection there is to it. Indeed – ultimate irony of ironies – I predict that within six months the most fervant of Euro-nihilists will be running regular CI campaigns to “send a message to Brussels”.

It will be fascinating to see how the system works in practice. We don’t have anything like it at a UK level.

I think that you’re being perhaps a little harsh on Cameron — this is an area where trying to keep a united front on party policy is like attempting a tightrope walk whilst fencing with one hand tied behind your back. Sure, his policy announcement was mainly about party management, but I don’t discredit him for that — I think he showed reasonable political skill in managing to defuse what looked like a certain blow-up with the Eurosceptic wing.

Next Left does a good analysis of Cameron’s three major pledges: http://www.nextleft.org/2009/11/camerons-cufflinks-define-tory-schism.html . As you say, the idea of having referendums on any transfer of power to the EU is an incredibly tricky one. I can see two potential ways of going about it: merely a legislative one that details the passing of new treaties plus one or two other big issues such as the Euro, and adopting or abolishing opt-outs to other significant pieces of EU legislation. This would obviously be limited, and not act as a cast-iron guarantee of protection of UK sovereignty via referenda.

The second could be a document more similar to constitutional legislation, or the Human Rights Act, which would be subject to judicial interpretation. Given the Conservatives’ attitudes towards judicial behaviour of this kind in recent years, I’m sceptical if they would be thrilled by this idea, however, it would politically carry more weight than a limited bill that simply laid out specific cases where referenda must be held.

The Sovereignty bill would have to be pretty symbolic and meaningless, if it were to comply with British terms fo membership — merely a restatement of what is possible under the status quo. It would also be stupid to detail a sovereingty bill in such a way that would conflict with any potentail future change in the status quo of legislative competence, as this would be highly embarassing for the Conservatives in government.

Repatriation of powers strikes me as the most problematic announcement — it will be very tricky to achieve anything meaningful, and is a huge hostage to fortune risk.

“I think Cameron will be a disastrous Prime Minister if he gets the chance: another Tony Blair but without the steel.”

Did Blair show a lot of steel in opposition?