You assert that "the republican debate is in fact now over." Given that I've never seen a single convincing argument that the life of Australians would in any way be improved by becoming a republic, I think that a serious debate is yet to begin.

When Australians – not people like the author and Greg Barnes, who calls Australia a ‘pigsty’- but the majority of voters in a majority of states, decide that an Australian republic would be a good thing, then we will have one.

Hopefully, by the time the next referendum comes, voters will be advised just how much money it is going to cost them to introduce a republic which will give them nothing they don’t have now, and which is unlikely to bind together the tribal hotchpotch Australia has become, thanks to that other ill-founded policy – multiculturalism.

Meanwhile, there are many more important things affecting the people who will make the decision. As the recent referendum proved, a republic is not highly placed in the minds of the people. The fact that that the embittered Australia-basher Greg Barnes is fiddling about with ideas for Australia’s future should be of grave concern given his often disgraceful comments about the country on OLO and in the general media

This republic debate seems to go round and round in circles because so many protagonists don't seem to accept the basic realities of Australian politics.

The first is the well established premise, dating back to the NSW Corps, that the Government is the enemy of the People, and can never be trusted.

The fact that a republic cannot be achieved without a vote of the people, and that the public love to see politicians humiliated, particularly when they are dismissed by Her Majesty's representative, is completely ignored.

The fact that all Federal politicians with republican inclinations swore on oath that they would be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, would be of some significance if it were not accepted that politicians routinely lie in their teeth.

The only way a republic is going to come about is for the people to receive a quid pro quo, in the form of citizens initative referendum, enabling them to enact legislation in the teeth of the opposition of the political elite. Only then can important issues, such as reduction in politicians pay, and restoration of capital punishment, be brought back into the political arena.

Unless there is a quid pro quo there will be no republic. History shows that since federation there is no referendum that has been passed on a second try, with the NO vote usually being bigger second time around.

Peter van Vliet covers the main obstacles in reaching a republic, but without answers to address them. For example, the Irish model may be great in Ireland, but the existence of the Australian Senate makes an Irish Presidency unworkable in Australia. Sorry, but this is not a question of perfection vs imperfection as suggested in the article. It is a question of workable vs unworkable.

I believe there are major difficulties with all the current ARM models:
-- Models 1 to 3 would be rejected because the people do not choose the Head of State.
-- Model 4 has the problem that parliamentarians choose the candidates.
-- Models 4 and 5 will not even reach referendum because codifying the powers of the Governor-General is politically impossible.
-- The US-based model 6 has already been dropped by the ARM
(see http://www.republic.org.au/6models/index.htm)

In order to be successful a republic model needs to focus on separating of Australia from the monarchy. To be acceptable by government who must present a referendum bill to the parliament, the Head of State must be no political threat to the Prime Minister and unmoved and uninvolved in day-to-day politics.

For referendum success the new Head of State needs to be directly-elected, independent of all political parties and the government and a non-partisan figurehead who can speak freely. (eg the Irish President must get approval to make a speech from the government).

It should be a cost-effective proposal, with a range of benefits for Australia. For example, we know the Queen promotes British interests overseas and promotes charitable causes. What will an Australian Head of State be doing to further Australia's interests?

I would be interested if anyone would like to add to or expand on this, rather than have the usual distractions. I’ll say up front that I have a vested interest as a member of the Copernican Group (http://www.copernican.info).

Please consider also adding comments to our forum http://www.7gs.com/copernican/

I have a dream (with apologies to Martin) that my model can get up.

1. No real constitutional change because we already elect enough houses and reps to govern us for 4 years and we get what we vote for. (i.e., we already have double check houses at both state and federal level.)

2. Our new President has no power whatsoever, other than his/her word on any issue.

3. He or she will get passed the political “power dilemma” opposition because of 1. And 2.

4. Because of 1, 2 and 3. The people will elect him or her President.

From my view, all I want is a leader we can count on to be respected in this country and around the world. Currently, we elect politicians to be our leaders and cower in embarrassment every time they open their mouths because they feel they cannot tell us the truth on any subject.

I want a President purely because I would like a leader, I and all of the people of this nation, would be proud of, rather than a person who does not really represent the essential psyche of the people of this nation.

The intelligentsia will brand me naïve for the above but that is my reason for wanting a republic.

"For referendum success the new Head of State needs to be directly-elected, independent of all political parties and the government and...non-partisan".

A direct election? You'll get Ray Bloody Martin for President! The proposal that a president be chosen by a two-thirds majority of parliament makes a lot more sense to me, since every one of them is already representative of the electorate. It's also a more democratic method than what we use now.

If this debate continues long enough the choice will be made for us. A similar debate is taking place in the Auld Country and many of them, let alone us, are having second thoughts about a King William.