I think that to some extent this is an unreal question. I don't see why we have to be so precise that every possible situation is somehow made explicit. If we say that no election will be called unless the government loses the confidence of the House, if we find the appropriate parliamentary language for saying that, then I think that would be sufficient. Where there might be doubt, you'd simply call for a vote of the House and ask it to express either its confidence or its non-confidence. In other words, if a particular bill is defeated, and it's uncertain and there's nothing explicit in the law that says, “Is this confidence or not confidence?”, then it's very easy to ask the House if this was something it meant to be an act of confidence or non-confidence. That is a normal way to act, and I don't think other parliaments have a problem with this.
It's understood, say, in Sweden or Germany that a government remains in power.... It's only if it's unable to maintain the confidence of the House, in the case of Germany--or no other government either--that there has to be a premature election. This is understood. I doubt if in these countries they specify every possible way in which lack of confidence could be expressed. But the meaning of the existing law is absolutely clear in all of those countries, and I don't see why we shouldn't make an effort to do the same.