We no longer have democracy

IMHO - since the end of the Blair administration, the UK's government (actual administration) has not been elected (at all).

I recall the BBC changed tone dramatically after 1997 and thought this was a natural result of the switch in power (I thought nothing of it). The thing is though it never switched back, or changed tone, when the conservatives notionally took power - it just kept going in the same direction.

If referendums are the panacea for the 'demographic deficit' then it would seem that more of them would be a good thing.

And yet the Leave faction has set its face firmly against a re-run of the 2016 referendum. Is that because of a concern that the people might not deliver the required answer this time around?

Is there some constitutional principle which holds that a referendum result is carved in stone as if brought down from the Mount and remains Holy Writ for ever more?

There is a good case in democratic terms for referendums on controversial topics to be repeated every few years, especially when the winning margin is very small.

I'm not sure I follow that, can't ever remember electing a cabinet just a prime minister or local MP.

 The treaties are inanimate pieces of paper from which the animate parts of the EU can organise that which they want. This was clearly demonstrated by the rejection of the Constitutional treaty through referenda whereby an amending treaty appeared that did the same thing and did not require referenda only ratification by National Parliaments, except Ireland who had to vote twice to get it right.
Referenda are for the EU dangerous things as they move power to the people as opposed to the executive. The point about referenda was that if one promotes oneself  (the EU) as a democratic body then one should expect the people to be all powerful irrespective of how that is Constitutionally brought about.
As regards UK referenda the EEC should have insisted that the UK should invoke some form of mandate measure before signing up if it promoted democracy. As I said the process that was adopted eventually weakened the Remain position. In line with other major Constitutional changes Heath should have gone to the country with membership of the EEC as party policy. This is in line with the UK Constitution and time honoured in its use. I agree once treaties were signed then it was the treaties that were the legal entities. This does not mean that the UK Constitution is wrong it just means that a weakness within it could be exploited as I have already said.

Referenda should in general terms be restricted to that which changes the peoples relationship with the Constitution. The point about the rejection of a new EU referendum is that the campaign to Remain has been ongoing, is still well funded, is still well supported within the higher echelons of power and in reality Reman groups have done as much as they possibly can to stop the UK from leaving and to keep intact as much as they can to facilitate some form of re-entry. The point about Leaving is one actually has to complete the reality of leaving. We reached a fork in the road and the people decided to go right, the power within the establishment kept pulling to the left so that progress on the right hand path was both restricted and bumpy.

Exactly. Compare that situation with Western European democracies where the government is forced to give the people a say on such matters. You've hit the nail on the head, Doc. The UK constitution facilitates undemocratic government.

France and the Netherlands had referenda as regards the EU Constitution and rejected it and got an EU Constitution. Having a say is important but realistically it has to be followed as policy.