Compton needs to learn some of the basics of our constitution before he goes on and wrecks it. For a start, Australia has no constitutional links with the UK (or Britain or England or whatever other incorrect terminology). I'll repeat that. None, zero, zip, nada, nothing whatsoever. All of them removed by various acts of the Australian parliament over many years cilminating in the Australia Act.

So please don't blab on about Australia clinging to the skirts of the mother country.

Yes we share a Queen .. the Queen of Australia is the same person as the Queen of the UK. BUT, the only office Australia deals with is in her role as Queen of Australia in which she is ONLY advised by her Australian ministers. So no links there either.

Compton needs to find a more realistic plan if he is to make changes. The constitution cannot be changed without a referendum and that referendum can't be held without the electorate being informed of the proposed change to the constitution and given the arguments for the yes and no cases. So Compton's fantasy question is simply not legal. It essentially asks the people to remove their right to decide and hand it to a bunch of people we don't trust as it is.

There's nothing stopping the PM from whipping up a new draft constitution any time she likes. She doesn't need the approval of the people to do so. But she knows not to. I wonder why?

I enjoyed reading the article - thanks, Mr Compton! That said, I have trouble agreeing with much of what you say.

You present a number of things as inevitable: the dissolution of the states, for example. I just don't see any indication that this is inevitable - perhaps someone could enlighten me? I can understand the arguments that it is PREFERABLE, but not those that it is inevitable. To tie it in with the republican debate doesn't work for me, because they're two separate issues. Both involve constitutional change, but neither is dependent on the other.

Other things presented as 'truths' get in the way of the thrust of the article: the only reason WA is part of Australia is because of poor communications during the 1930s, for example. Really? I'm not convinced. The propagandists promoting separatism would be using the same channels as those opposing it. Who's to tell which argument would have won out?

I'm open to the idea of a republic, but have yet to see an argument that presents it either as a necessity or as something unnecessary but beneficial. Preparing a constitution, voting and implementing change - particularly radical change like that proposed in this article - is a huge expense for the simple reason of 'cutting the apron-strings', to which we are nominally tied but from which we are practically separated as it is.

"At age 224, its time that we did, particularly as the majority of Australians are not of British descent, and our continued fascination with Britain makes them feel as though they are house guests, not family."

That is simply not true.

Australians of British/Anglo-Celtic descent still form the majority (~60 percent) of the population. While their proportion of the population is in decline due to the demographic shifts being brought about immigration, it is likely that British/Anglo-Celtic Australians will continue to form the dominate group in Australian society for some time to come.

In any case, I see nothing wrong with Australia maintaining symbols of its British heritage. After all, much of Australia's relative success as a free, prosperous society can be attributed to its British inheritance.

* dominant group

To deal with a specific shibboleth, much to my own surprise I have come to like the States. Competitive jurisdictions have a lot to be said for them; in a partial list they help to maintain tax competition, dampens and creates tests for the latest fadish education fashion, has provided comparison between State and Private power cost structures and prevents an Imperial Prime Ministership.
Divided jurisdisctions are the worst form of running a country except for the alternatives.