If you want evidence of how weak the UK’s model of Parliamentary democracy truly is, you only need to glance at this article:

Parliament should be able to bypass ministers and launch its own inquiries into issues of “exceptional” public concern such as the Iraq war, MPs say.

This is a power that pretty much every single Parliament in an established democracy takes for granted. It goes to the heart of the point of democracy, yet here it is considered to be radical and should be reserved for “exceptional” circumstances.

Meanwhile, the government’s Constitutional Renewal Bill, which was supposed to usher in a new era of Parliamentary scrutiny, only actually codifies existing conventions on things like the government’s (or “Crown’s” if you will) war and treaty-making powers, and actually proposes to reduce scrutiny of the attorney general. Even Charlie Falconer dismisses it as “trivial“. That is what Gordon Brown chose to launch his premiership on all those months ago - a complete figleaf. Is it any wonder his government is collapsing like a compost heap on a sunny day?

The UK, famously, does not have a codified constitution. We have the beginnings of what is vaguely termed a “supreme court” but it explicitly does not have a constitutional role.

How, therefore, does Stuart Wheeler intend to argue the case for his proposal to judicially review the government’s decision not to progress with a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty?

To do so would not merely overturn a government decision but effectively a Parliament decision (which has not, lest we forget, actually been made yet). That would mean junking, out of a very high window from St Stephen’s tower, the long cherished notion of Parliamentary sovereignty.

I thought Euro-sceptics loved the notion of Parliamentary sovereignty? Of course, their affection for referendums (albeit only on their terms) does somewhat undermine that view, but surely they haven’t let go of their opposition to the idea of codifying the constitution so that it can’t be simply overturned by a parliamentary vote? If they suddenly love judges deciding everything so much, why the opposition for the Human Rights Act?

Wheeler believes he has an “excellent” chance of winning. I don’t, I should emphasise, share his confidence. But if he does, he will succeed in getting the High Court to completely and utterly rewrite the UK constitution from first principles onwards, with no public or Parliamentary debate and at the behest of a millionaire who made his money through the rater morally dubious route of the gambling industry. Isn’t our “flexible” constitution wonderful?

It seems I am caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, the Lib Dem PP’s refusal to back a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty under any circumstances is something I’m not happy with. On the other hand, saying so publicly makes me subject to the fatuous braying of Tory bloggers like Iain Dale and Dan Hassett.

Let’s be clear: the reason the Lib Dem front bench don’t want a referendum on Lisbon is because they are (correctly) convinced we would lose it. To that extent they are being opportunistic, and no amount of soft soaping from Paul Walter or others will change that.

But is Nick Clegg correct to insist that an in or out referendum is the closest we have to the promised referendum on the Constitutional Treaty? Abso-bloody-lutely.

Because the whole point of the Constitutional Treaty was that it was a “delete all, replace with” process. It was a Year Zero approach to reforming the EU. Lisbon, at the insistence of the Euro-sceptics, is not; it is an amending treaty. That being the case, the EU’s constitution is the body of treaties going all the way back to Rome. If you want a referendum on the EU’s constitution, you have to have a referendum about that.

So if you want to get technical here, it is actually more dishonest and going back on past election promises for the Tories not to support the Lib Dem line of an in or out referendum than for the Lib Dems to not support the Tory line for a Lisbon referendum. Far more dishonest.

I think there has been a democratic deficit regarding the EU for a long, long time now. It has left scars and could harm the UK’s role in the EU in the long term. A referendum on Lisbon might help correct that. But the fundamental problem there is that we have a model of strong government and a weak Parliament. Which party supports the status quo the loudest in this regard? Step forward the Conservative Party.

Nick Clegg may not be exactly showering us in glory here, but at least we don’t have a shyster like David Cameron at the helm. I sleep soundly.

I have to admit to remaining of the view that if the Lib Dems are in favour of a referendum on our continued membership of the EU, which we apparently are, then if that option looks as if it will get nowhere (which it does) we should be supporting the next best option, a referendum on the Reform Treaty. The fact that we’ve consistently failed to enthuse the public about the EU should not be a reason for refusing to face the music.

But if I don’t quite get Clegg’s line, Cameron’s line is even more inconsistent. Why this fig leaf about a referendum? If the Tories are opposed to the Reform Treaty, which when you read between the lines they clearly are, then why not simply say so? Why push for a national referendum, at great public expense, when a simple no vote in Parliament would save us all a lot of time and money?

It is pure oppositionism - opposing the government for the sake of opposition. The purpose of a referendum in this context (since it isn’t citizen-initiated) is to ratify a decision of Parliament; but if Parliament doesn’t make that decision then we don’t require a referendum.

The Tories have always been the opponents of referendums. They now present themselves as champions, but look a little closer. With the Reform Treaty, they are seeking to give the public a vote on an issue that they oppose and calculate the public do to. With their proposals over council tax, they will only permit a public vote if a local authority exceeds a “trigger threshold” (or as it is currently known, a cap) set by the (Tory) government. Referendums have their place as a way to hold the government of the day to account; but when they are used by government to simply make themselves look popular they are a blatant abuse of taxpayer’s money. It is the politics of Napoleon or indeed Nazi Germany.

There are two ways you can arguably use referendums legitimately - to ratify a constitutional change or at the behest of a significant proportion of the public. You might oppose both uses of referendums, but the dangers inherent of allowing governments to pick and choose as it suits them must surely be worse? Even the much maligned Hugo Chavez doesn’t do that.

You might be uncomfortable with the thick authoritarian streak running through Labour, but Cameron’s weakness for despotism is potentially far worse.

A good, measured and proportionate response to the English/West Lothian/”YOR’E ALL C**TS!!!!” Question from Channel 4’s Factcheck, making a welcome post-election return.

While we’re at it, this piece about Scottish funding is worth considering as well.