Oliver:

Yes, as you suggest, the whole concept of monarchy is vaguely repulsive as an abstract idea; pragmatically, however, I happen to feel that it works well in our case and brings important advantages, so I have made my peace with it. I also quite agree with learning from other liberal societies. I don't pretend that the British way is the only good way, but I do feel that it is basically our way.

Regarding your expansion of the "open access" system to include the US and the Scandinavian countries, I like to imagine that closer ties of this nature between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK (CANZUK) could eventually lead to even greater levels of integration, and this is something I would like to see. I can't quite imagine this happening with other countries: Norway has never joined the EU, for example, and Sweden and Denmark have resisted the Euro, which seems to suggest that they would be equally reluctant to join any anglophone club. I also can’t see the US doing anything except on its own rules, which are not quite the same as ours.

Ok, so here is my real position: being a country of 20 million people stuck down in the bottom corner of the world is not a strong bargaining position in this big world. Even if we completed the unfinished business of federation and formed a Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand, we would only have a population of 24 million. If an ANZAC federation and the Canadian federation could get together, though, that would create a population of about 55 million, which is starting to look more respectable. If the UK can get its act together and leave the EU before it becomes a federal superstate, then they might want to join us too: that would take the population to around 110 million and we would be a significant part of a real global player, instead of having our cherished independence and being ignored by everyone. Without our shared monarchy, I can’t see any of this happening.

Ian, I think the time for what you describe being variable has now past. Were there a CANZUK union, it need not have unifying monarch. One possibility would be an economic union with similar, but independent political systems. However, Canada would find it hard, because it has strong economic ties with the US. Moreover, Britain has chosen its course.

I cited the Scandinavian countries because there is a similar mindedness between the non-Latin countries of Western civilisation. Oz and Scandinavian economic union would not happen: I appreciate that situation. However, Australia could benefit adopting some of their progress views, plus a pinch of the American penchant toward testing new horizons. Also, importantly, we have our own home culture to nurture.

Canada and Australia would respect each other as equals, but the Britons would still see themselves as the "British British" and the English themselves cut above the Irish and Scots (my ancestors also. These silly hierarchies are reminiscences of Empire, that would need to be disposed to history, before unification would be acceptable.

New Zealand being subsumed into Australia would not surprise me now that distance is no longer a problem.

Basically, I would have no problem with the union describe, but, not under a monarchy and not where Britain is presumed more equal than the others. Also, I prefer a Senate in lieu of a House of Lords. Further, I would suggest, our Referenda and Plebeian control over the US system. THis, we do have a pretty good system now, except...

The US is problematic. Western Civilisation had the British Empire, which has fallen. The US is different (as you say) to CANZUK and probably the centre state of the modern West. Its emerging Empire will probably be sustained, but China and India would need to achieve only about one-third the State’s productivity levels to equal US GDP. The US could link in with large resource rich countries like Australia and Canada to balance its books. Herein, while China buys up America’s innovation companies, America could buy up our resource companies?

Dontcha just love 'em? Dontcha look forward to the day when they are King Charles and Queen Camilla of Australia? Read on...

Charles and Camilla sell out for secret US hygiene launch
by Staff Brand Republic 1 Apr 2005

LONDON - An American personal hygiene company is to sponsor the US broadcast of next week's royal wedding of Charles and Camilla in an attempt to publicise the launch of its new Seven Days tampon brand.
The Americans are hoping to ride on the back of the Royal couple's association with tampons, revealed in 1993 with the Camillagate tapes -- a recording of a mobile phone conversation in which Charles talked about being reincarnated as a tampon and living inside Camilla's knickers.
The sponsorship, for American broadcast only on the coast-to-coast AFD network, is conditional on there being no reference whatsoever to the product in the UK coverage of the wedding, although product placement rules forbid this anyway. Both the BBC and ITV are devoting hours of coverage to the church blessing to be held at Windsor Castle on the afternoon of Friday April 8, after the couple have been married privately in a register office in the town.
Royal officials remained tight-lipped on the audacious bid by Herman Furman Hygiene Solutions, while sponsorship experts put the value of the deal at between $5m (£2.65m) and $20m.
Scott Blazen-Smythe, director of international sponsorship consultancy Twine, said: "You wouldn't have expected Charles to sell out like this, but it goes to show that even Royals have their price.

http://www.brandrepublic.com/bulletins/media/article/468893/charles-camilla-sell-secret-us-hygiene

TrueBlue

Oliver, you may well be right about the time for this being past, but I’ll try anyway, because I think a CANZUK (or at least CANZ) federation would be the best way for Australia to find its place in the world. I appreciate your comment about Canadians and Australians treating each other more as equals, but I have also found that most English people – perhaps after a joke or two about the colonies and the assumption that we only care about sports – are more than happy to treat Aussies as equals as long as we don’t adopt our “whingeing Pom” stereotypes about them.

Despite the acronym, I’m not really thinking in terms of a federation of the four existing countries, but of a federation of states and provinces, where New South Wales, New Zealand, British Columbia and Scotland would be member units, rather than Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the UK. This way, there is no reason why Brits would be “more equal than others”, because a CANZUK federal parliament would be divided far more on party lines than on existing national lines. Under current circumstances, it is easy to imagine a CANZUK federal election where the centre-left parties run with Tony Blair as leader and the centre-right parties with John Howard.

I quite agree that such a federation would not need to retain the monarchy, but I see two advantages to keeping it for the short term. Firstly, it would simplify things constitutionally. It may be a legal fiction to have the Queen as our head of state, but it would be a very convenient fiction in the case of forming this federation. Secondly, any elected CANZUK president would inevitably be from one or other of the existing countries, which might exacerbate the sense of not being fully equals in the federation. For the first generation, while people get used to the idea, the monarchy may seem more neutral in that regard. After the federation is consolidated in people’s minds: go with whatever has the support of the population.

Aw shucks, can't help buying into this one. I too, was incensed at Camillagate (what a CAD!!) but at the end of the day, true love has surely won out. It might not be Shakespeare or even Jackie Collins but hands up who would trade their life for Chuckie's. What a miserable life and at the age of 57 he gets to marry the woman he declared "non negotiable" in his whole life and thumbs his patrician nose at mummy. Diana is dead and whilst I thought she was pretty lovely and had a bad life in that family, then died in her prime, she is probably nodding sagely and saying, "not surprised" However, the living keep living. As to whether Camilla is Queen or not is to whether we want the whole box and dice. Methinks not. What advantage outside women's mags? And we have Mary of Denmark to fill that void. The whole concept of England bar the Westminster system of law is not really happening here. They're aa pretty sorry family aren't they. You wouldn't want to live next door to them. All those tea parties.....

Those born to posses university degrees and positions will not benefit from a “constitutional change” surely.

The Commonwealth of Australia and majority of citizens will benefit from a republic that will open opportunities for those who can do jobs creatively rather than those who are privileged to be paid for an inherited sinecures as it occurs recently.

MichaelK.