Dear bozzie - sometimes your posts positively incense me, but this is one with which I find myself nodding (not to mention giggling) with agreement... keep it up, old son!

Morgan :D

Bozzie, of course you are right about the Australian Republic issue being much more important anyone person. But one must admit, the prospect of having a King, who talks to rocks and who wants to be reincarnated as a tampon, is a pretty good reason to address the true reason promptly;-).

Oliver, you talk about what "Britain" has done to Australia as if it were a person: "Britain turned its back on the Commonwealth by entering the then Common Market". In fact it was the British government of the time that did it, not the country as a whole, not the people. And only around 30% of Britons think it was a good move, if the polls are anything to go by.

Until the 70s all Australians, all New Zealanders and all Canadians were British subjects: it was part of the deal, and it had nothing to do with ethnic background. Then suddenly our governments all decide to take away that connection and we have to treat each other as foreigners? It's silly. A New Zealander is no more foreign to me than a Queenslander, nor is a Scot or an Ontarian. I find it very sad that people are so willing to accept this narrowing of our world-view, as if only someone born on the same island can be one of "us".

Bozzie, I would actually like to be closer to Canada and the UK than just "members of the Commonwealth": I would like to see the same sort of deal we have with New Zealand, where we have the right to live and work in each other's countries - virtually a common citizenship. Wouldn't it be good if you could go and work in Manchester or study in Vancouver just the same as you can in Perth or Christchurch? I'd like that for my kids, but the way we are going is exactly the opposite: people calling for more parochialsim rather than more integration. I can't see what the benefit of that is.

Ian, I would have to agree with your historical comments because these are fact. Similarly, my comments are fact.

What prompted my style was your wording, "the British family"; wherein, I was endeavouring to argue Britain -not Britons- consistently acts in an unfamily-like manner and in its own interests. In this frame, we have drifted apart and should no longer look towards Britain nor its temporal "Godhead". Herein, Britain, the political entity, wants it both ways, to be treated as the centre state of the British Commonwealth, and, to favour the EU over Commonwealth members. Perhaps, a little like the US attitude towards the UN, only more so.

Subjects of continental Europe have customs and work permit preferences over Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders. So, British lineage looses-out here. I think that would be hard to deny. You do not mention the Americans. They are by-in-large Britons in the sense that they left the political Britain to create their "New Jerusalem", guided by the English and French enlightenment thinkers, and, against, the rule of George II and George III.

Herein, with the US in a sense we have Britain II. That is, the Britons moved and created a (initially) British republican quasi-democracy in a new land, under an ethically-British electorial college with a President. Celts and Anglo-Saxons remained in Britain I under German lineage constitutional monarchical rule, as does

contemporary Britain I, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Similarly, I feel liberalists like John Lock and David Hume, would have the People have the ultimate right to choose their own form of Government or leave. British Americans chose to leave. So should British lineage dominated Australia. (Mutli-ethicity a separate reason)

(Aside: Strickly speaking Lincoln broke with liberal moralist tradition by preserving the Union.)

In sum, Australia has the liberal right to drop the British monarchy. Further, Britain has given us plenty of reasons to do so. Lastly, to place lineage above nationality, we would need to designate King Charles a Germanic-Greek, and, have the US our centre state

Oliver, you refer repeatedly to lineage and ethnicity, so perhaps I have created a false impression of my position. The “British family” I spoke of is not about genetics, but about culture, institutions, basic values. “British”, after all, is not an ethnic category. As I suggested before, the status of Australian citizens as Britons until the 70s had nothing to do with ethnicity: Greek-Australians and Chinese-Australians were Britons just as automatically as were Australians of Scottish background like myself.

In the 1770s, the American colonies wanted representative government within the Empire in exchange for the taxes they paid, but their request was rejected and they rebelled. When much the same thing happened at Eureka some eighty years later, the requests were answered, and the Australian colonies rapidly became self-governing. Our system of government was built within British institutions, never in conflict with them. Had George III been a little less pig-headed, the US would probably have remained part of the British family too. Of course Australia has “the liberal right to drop the British monarchy”, but I don’t want to. The next step beyond an Australian Republic would be separate republics for each state: if I can’t accept a figurehead from another island, how can I expect a Tasmanian to accept a figurehead from the mainland?

The sticking point is the EU but, as I suggested, only around 30% of Britons are really in favour of it. I have friends from the UK who feel that it is absurd for, say, Italians to have preference over ANZACS and Canadians, and who would love to keep their distance from the EU and rebuild proper ties with us. What they see from Australia, however, is a desire to push them away. This seems like a typical family situation to me: the parents can’t understand why their offspring are always spitting the dummy and the offspring feel their parents don’t really respect them. Rather than throwing the (constitutional) plates and storming out of the (British) house, I would prefer to recognise what we have in common and concentrate on getting on as equals.

Ian, thank you, for your considered reply. I am under a little time pressure over the next few days regarding some other matters, but will still make some quick points:

* I agree we have owe much to our British heritage.

* Much of that heritage was a result of the People/Nobles standing in
opposition to the Monarchy: e.g., the ideals set out in The Magna
Carta and Constitutional Monarchy.

* Monarchy; perhaps for space reasons, a little simplified;
was based on conquest and federation, and on the
establishment of "Estate" over land to create a nobility over/apart
the landless and commerce.

Technically, even free title, is free title in estate and
the Crown has absolute title. Fiefdom was an extention of Western
Roman slavery systems. Basically, a medieval political and
economic system with high vertical social order.

* Total A Priori validation of a modern Australia against British
heritage is limiting. We can learn much from the more liberal
Scandinavian countries (which I admit are monarchies too) and
the some progressive attitributes of America: e.g, commercial,
alumni funding of R & D.

* I agree with the open access model you propose. In fact, I would
include the US & Scandinavia, in addition to, Canada, NZ and
Britain. In fact, I prefer the personality of many Danes to
some Brits and some Aussies too. Danes can be casual without being
loud. A lttle more mature.

* We can still have close ties with Britain without having an
English head. As I suggested before if you regress your model
we would have a Norman French monarch (1066). With further
regression a Norse monarch (France, 911). (Regardless, of
the monarch's actual ethnicity)

Lastly, I quote, Isaiah Berlin (?), on liberty;

"freedom from political and eccesiastical authority and from the hegemonic rule of higher social classes". Perhaps, naively overstated. Nonetheless, the basic sentiment is powerful.

Thank you for your involvement is this debate.