Dear Ian,

Please don't take my comment the wrong way. That the Queen promotes the interest of the UK is not a criticism. Given the Queen is British and the UK taxpayer is underwriting the monarchy, that's exactly what she should be doing! She also makes attractive continued membership in the Commonwealth of Nations and who's to say what positive effect that has had on some underdeveloped nations (unfortunately not all.)

It used to be that marriages between kings, queens, princes and princesses were used to form alliances and bonds between kingdoms and empires. I would agree that if Prince William married an Australian girl, is would represent a new hurdle for the republican movement. I believe quite a few commentators jokingly suggested that we swap over to the Danish monarchy.

For me, all this confirms is that Australian Republicanism must address both the political/federal/constitutional aspects of government in tandem with the apolitical/civil/community role of the Head of State. Active republicans focus more on the 1st while the public at large will vote more so according to the 2nd.

Unfortunately, that which you say has been frittered away is also that which forms the justification of Australian as an independent nation - namely a Governor-General who is Australian. This is the main argument of ACM for no change.

On another point, it's interesting that sofar only the NO case is represented in comments here. Not that I mind it -- it's been a worthwhile exchange of views.

I don't see any reason to leave the commonwealth - it has served us well - prefer it to becoming USA's 51st state.

However, would like to see Australia become a republic for the sake of 'growing up'. This doesn't mean we have to relinquish the westminster system nor does it mean we have to adopt the american model of republicanism. I like the sound of David's proposal - it appears less disruptive than other proposals, something that fits in with what we already have.

I don't know much about the Canadian political system - apart from having a really good flag that doesn't get mistaken for anyone else's. Do they have a GG as the queens lil deputy? Interested to find out - somehow they appear more independent than us. I know I must sound really ignorant here, but am interested in other commonwealth nations and their political systems.

Dear Trinity,

Thanks for your post and supportive comments.

I don't see any reason to leave the Commonwealth either and the good news is that almost all republicans agree with you. A majority of Commonwealth countries are republican including India, South Africa and Singapore. These republics have the same rights to Commonwealth membership as Australia. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations)

Canada changed its flag but its constitutional system is very similar to ours. They have a Governor-General, a federal constitution and a republican movement.

The Republic of India has a President with mostly ceremonial functions, so the Prime Minister heads the government. India was once in the same position as Australia with the British King as Emperor of India and a Governor-General. In 1950, India became the first republic in the Commonwealth. The President is appointed via an electoral college of state and federal parliamentarians.

On the other hand South Africa has an executive presidency, like the United States.

Papua New Guinea is an interesting example. It is a constitutional monarchy with a Governor-General elected by its parliament.

When looking for overseas examples, republicans have often looked to Europe for inspiration. Ireland, Portugal and Austria are all republics where a Prime Minister runs the country and the President is elected but has no real power. Unfortunately, the constitutional machinery of these countries cannot be simply transplanted to Australia. Why? Many reasons, the first being that our Senate can stop the government spending money (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_of_Supply) It was Richard McGarvie, former Governor of Victoria, who first outlined the importance of analysing local conditions and I have tried to follow from his lead.

Trinity, you know something about the Governor-General, the Westminster System and Republicanism in general. That's enough to class you as well informed in my books.

David,

Regarding the possibility of one of our young Princes marrying an Australian, I think it would simply dissolve a lot of republican feelings. For many Australians, I think the republic represents a false sense that the Brits don’t treat us as equals, the Queen forgets we even exist, so let’s all sulk in a corner and make them go away. The republican movement seems to me to be a manifestation of the inferiority complex that we used to call the cultural cringe.

It may well be true that having an Australian Governor-General is our justification as an independent nation, but unless you are a 17 year old wanting to borrow the car on a Friday night, independence is not everything. If Federation had not happened, for example, New South Wales would probably now be an independent but almost completely insignificant nation, and that would have been an unfortunate outcome. Federation involved thinking beyond existing borders and existing limits, and I would like us to go back to thinking bigger and thinking beyond. Our federation of the Australian states was designed in the 19th century, with its slow transportation and difficult communications. For the 21st century, I would like to see a broader federation of our states and territories, New Zealand, the Canadian provinces, and the constituent nations of the United Kingdom.

You mention ACM and the NO case: they do not represent what I want. I agree with you that there is a mismatch between sharing the monarchy and being an independent nation. Your response is to stop sharing the monarchy. Mine is to trade up from "independence" to membership of something bigger.

Trinity,

The more I talk with Canadians, the more I feel that the only real differences between them and us is that there is a significant chunk of their country where the main language is French, and they have the world’s most powerful country as their neighbour.

Dear Ian,

I have had a little think about what you wrote and while I am quite sympathetic to the idea of improving our links to New Zealand, Canada and the UK, one must admit that this is a big idea and sometimes big ideas are easy to propose but difficult to implement.

The Republican Movement has a very modest program in contrast to this grand plan to merge four or more nations. Furthermore somewhere between 46% and 80% of Australians would vote for a republic if by some magic there were no concerns about implementation.

The concepts in my article are focused on the aim of removing concerns about implementation; the broad idea/object already established.

In essence, you are asking a bridge builder to justify why people should want to cross the river, whereas you are saying people should cross way, way over there and you haven’t even begun to design the bridge.

When you have convinced enough people that CANZUK should exist and the Commonwealth of Australia should not, then you will find me very interested in the constitutional possibilities of such an entity.

Dear David,

I’m glad that you are not unsympathetic to the broad CANZUK idea, and I accept that it will probably be at least as difficult to implement as was our Federation a century ago. The major building blocks are, however, already in place. Canada, Australia and New Zealand already form a recognised grouping in UN circles, for example. Australia and New Zealand are already virtually one economy.

I must therefore question your choice of metaphor. You describe yourself as “a bridge builder” and say that I am asking you “to justify why people should want to cross the river.” In fact, you are setting out not to build a bridge, but to destroy one. That bridge already connects us to New Zealand, Canada and the UK, and you are trying to tell people that they have no business crossing that river. Republicanism is not a bridge: republicanism connects us with nothing.

You suggest that I am saying that “people should cross way, way over there”, and that we “haven’t even begun to design the bridge.” In fact, I am saying that we should continue to cross exactly where we have always crossed. I am trying to convince people who want to destroy a bridge that maybe it would be a better idea to repair it, to strengthen it, to add extra lanes, and to remove the border guards.

According to your figures, up to 54% of Australians would vote against a republic, even if the problems of implementation could magically be removed. You aim to deal with their concerns, but not with the underlying problem: the republican ideal is about cutting ties in a world where most countries are trying to build them, and that is not in the interests of our people.