The more federal power there is, the more open and flexible their laws must be. So i'm against it simply because I know how authoritarian our politicians are. They just can't seem to help grovelling before their respective, repressive ideologies.

Foxy
you have right, we're still a British colony.

'you have right, we're still a British colony'

What's so bad about that?

Dear Austin,

Because some of us no longer want to be 'powerless.'

So, Foxy, what are your visions of an independent Australia?

Hopefully not Paul Keating's 'Banana Republic'.

I find that most of those who scream out against being a 'British Colony' (which we really are not) are those of non-British extraction. I'm sure that Antonios would be happy if we were a Greek colony.

Technically, we don't have to answer to Britain if it doesn't suit us. Where were we during the Falklands War? The war against the IRA? Yet we are quick to jump for the 'Bush Wars'. I only fear that if we cut all ties with Britain, we will come even more under the American wing.
Surely you don't want to live in the 51st state.

Finally, I don't see our politicians as possessing the maturity and common sense to guide a totally independent nation. They're too busy seeing what they can get from the trough.

Dear Austin,

I don't want to get into a great discussion about the pros and cons of
Australia becoming a republic with you because I suspect that we won't
agree on very much at all. However, courtesy demands a reply from me, so here it is:

Borrowing a foreign head of state, which despite the facade of an "Australian Crown," accurately describes the reality in Australia, is unsatisfactory in at least three respects.

First, it is impractical, and detracts from national self-respect to depend on another country-over whose constitutional processes Australia has no control-for filling an essential constitutional office. The continuity of Australian government is thereby left contingent upon the actions of another country. If Britain were to become a republic, Australian government would be thrown into disarray.

Australia should be constitutionally free-standing; it should fill all public offices through its own constitutional processes.

Second, a head of state in the Westminster system occupies a largely sumbolic office, personifying the nation and seeking to represent its essential ethos and aspirations.

But what is the symbolism in a multicultural nation in the Southern Hemisphere between Southeast Asia and Oceania whose head of state is the Queen of the United Kingdom, a woman living at the opposite end of the earth?

What image does this present to the Australian people and to the international community? Surely it one of a country that has not completely outgrown its colonial status, that has not yet reached constitutional and cultural maturity, and that lacks the self-confidence of full nationhood.

Australia's Asian neighbours must inevitably wonder whether Australia is really reconciled to its place in the world-both geographically and culturally-when a European monarch sits at the apex of its governmental system. This failure to take the last small step to full nationhood retards both national self-esteem and cultural self-assurance, and detrimentally affects Australia's relations with its Asian neighbours.