When I say "Parliament" I mean both Houses. If I meant either the Commons or the Lords I would say so. I don't think either House should be elevated over the other - both Houses have important historical and constitutional functions (as does the Crown) and together wield Parliamentary Sovereignty.



I agree that restraining government in Parliament is difficult - the ruling Party typically has a majority (though I will stress the difference here between Government and Party, with statutory limits on the number of MPs in government). As for choice of PM, if Parliament can't decide the Queen will. If Parliament puts forward an unsuitable candidate or can't decide then the Queen can make a choice instead. See the Douglas-Home case for example.



QED. My original point - Parliament is Sovereign, and ever since the civil war can even usurp powers of the Crown. I would note however that the changes to the dissolution of Parliament were to stop opportunistic Prime Ministers calling elections. I'd also like to point out that it's by convention that the Queen does not use her powers, not that she can not.



I still have yet to see an example? Parliament can literally repeal, legislate or amend at will. It might well have serious consequences, but that wouldn't prevent Parliament from doing it. And as I've said before, Parliament is not bound by the result of a referendum.



I've never once said that having an uncodified constitution is a "downfall". I personally like the fact that Parliament has the power to act as it sees fit, it means we can avoid absurd situations because of legal constraints. However, with that come dangers obviously - but then having codified constitutions has never stopped dictators.



I suppose so, but that's not really what I was getting at. And as I've said before, the result wasn't binding.



Even then they're only a new phenomena. I didn't see any referendums held for the Acts of Union.



Again with being condescending! You're portraying everyone as a moron who takes their lead from the Sun. There are millions of highly-educated people in this Country, many of whom are far more qualified than those who sit in Westminster.



For direct democracy to be effective you'd need to give as much power as possible back to local areas. I'm a big believer in a PR electoral system with NO constituency link - that way you could raise your issue with an MP who is more likely to be sympathetic to your cause, much in the same way that you can lobby any Lord.



Indeed, if Alex Salmond gets his way.



You might remember that we were in fact due to hold a referendum on the issue. The government changed its mind - which the British government could do, the Irish government could not.

Agreed, although I would say that the House of Commons plays a more important role than either the House of Lords or Crown at the moment.



Well yes, but the example given is more down to a lack of party procedure in such an event. In reality there are now procedures in place to prevent such an instance from reoccuring (with all major three party's having leadership election processes. Such as for Brown).



The changes would not achieve their aim though - any Party with a majority (unless a minority government, which is extremely rare) could use its MP's to call an election. Generally it will be able to muster a majority in the commons to call the election, over which the whips have influence.



Constitutionally cannot, due to convention, it becomes one and the same - yes there may be a blurred line but the fact remains that any usage of her powers would result in a constituional crisis. The idea that theoretically she 'could' use her powers is fine, but practically she no longer can. To the degree that it is unimaginable for her too anyway.



Yet I think we may both have to concede here that the usage of referendum is too modern to have created any examples yet - there has not yet come a time when the government has fallen into the position where it wishes to repeal an Act passed/agreed by referendum. Only time will tell the eventual outcome of this, though I do believe that it will be forced to once again request the public opinions.



The problem is that is there a viable alternative which solves the issues of entrenchment yet stops stagnation?



Feel free to explain



Yes but you could also argue that we were not a democracy and so it would be rather admirable for a referendum to occur. In the 1818 election (or around then) there was only something like 40% seat contesting in the UK, and only 10% of men had the vote. There were different measurements to what was democratic in those centuries...



Not at all! However I am saying that although there are millions of high-educated, there are even more millions of not so highly educated! The highly educated would become a minority, they could be easily overruled by sheer numbers. You would say that a reasonable amount (over 90%) of people in the UK understand political matters? Without this proportion a referendum is not representative of what is best for the people with an understanding of what they are voting on.



So a big pot of names where each party gets its fair share? But then not only do you get an indecisive government (where forming a majority takes months on end) but you would also have MP's that are not directly responsible to a small group of people, making it much harder to get rid of them. (not to mention letting loads of extremist party's into Parliament).



Yes, but this refers more to ability to create constitutional change than what I was referring to - which was the finality of the public decision in a referendum.