It may be even more appropriate, and a classical Australian solution, to appoint the true heir to the throne by way of the original Plantagenant line. I mean the guy from Forbes NSW (sorry to forget his name) who came here as a common ten pound pom only to be told, years later, that he was the true heir to the British Crown.

Let him remain far from the madding crowd in the small community he loves, let him approve a Governor General put forward by the PM of the day, and let us all get on with the real business of governance.

That’s the problem with trying to use a metaphorical argument. Someone else can reemploy it for another purpose as Ian has done with aplomb.

The pessimistic figure of 46% is taken from the 1999 referendum. We know that support for a republic cannot be lower than this number. The highest support that I know of was a poll of 80%, but I think that high number was generated as a result of the question. So we know the true figure is somewhere in-between. It is not my intention to exaggerate the level of support. Current polling suggests republicanism is supported by a slim majority.

I do aim to address the concerns and I take the objective as a given. Naturally, I also approve of the objective.

Perseus! What a disloyal but impressively lateral thought!

I heard the guy (I cant find his name either) was happy just to go on as a normal bloke.

David,

Somewhere in the triangle formed by Java, the Solomon Islands and the South Pole lies a predominantly English-speaking, secular Westminster democracy of about 20 million people. Practically speaking, how do you think this country can best find its place in the world? How would creating a Republic of Australia help?

In a world where most countries are trying to build up stronger international groupings, I see Australians’ interests as being best served by working more closely with those countries that share our basic culture, values and institutions, which I identify as New Zealand, Canada and the UK. You propose cutting some of the ties that I wish to strengthen, and I don’t understand why. What do you see as the benefits?

Mr Michael Hastings is his name. True (blue) heir to the Crown.

Thank you Ian for your questions and arguments.

The ties that matter between the four are those through the Commonwealth of Nations and various bilateral and multilateral ties. The monarchy does not represent a formal tie between nations as the Queen of Australia has a different crown personality to that of the Queen of Canada, NZ or UK and Northern Ireland. This has been the case for fifty years and is again part of the de facto independence Australia enjoys.

A republic would not cause Australia to loose its Commonwealth Membership, as per the precedent set by the establishment of the Republic of India. Bilateral and multilateral ties would be completely unaffected by establishing a republic. We are not changing who we are, but making our constitution reflect who we are. On this point, we are not Canzukians.

In summary, your argument that we'd be breaking ties has no basis.

I shy away from making rash claims about the Copernican paradigm, or my Honorary President model, however should the public expect that the proposed apolitical Head of State help foster ties between us and other nations, by cultural exchanges or international touring then, in fulfilling this expectation, a benefit would be realised. This is on top of other benefits the public may have expectations for e.g. encouraging civil society or volunteerism and on top of the benefits from republicanism in general eg popular sovereignty, national identity, open opportunity to be Head of State, a more appropriate constitutional foundation and I could go on.

Most Australians seem to be fairly decided one way or another on the broader issue (or they have decided they don't care.) What is in question is whether republicans can devise an acceptable model.

David,

Firstly, I know that becoming a republic would not lose us our place in the Commonwealth. It would, however, mean choosing to put more distance between ourselves and the other CANZUK countries.

Secondly, when I first spoke of a federation between Australia and New Zealand, you questioned whether Australians would accept a New Zealander as Head of State and vice versa. A republic would create this problem, but it simply does not arise with the monarchy: not with New Zealand, nor with Canada nor the UK. The monarchy may not be a “formal tie”, but it certainly does not represent a barrier to closer cooperation.

Thirdly, you say that “We are not changing who we are, but making our constitution reflect who we are. On this point, we are not Canzukians.” This argument is analogous to someone in the 1890s saying “we are not Australians: we are Victorians”. No one had to stop being Victorian in order to welcome Federation and become Australian: they just added another layer of identity. CANZUK federation would be the same: I, for example, would still be a Sydneysider, a New South Welshman and an Australian, but I would add another layer. No loss, just gain.

Finally, none of the benefits you propose strike me as very clear. The opportunity to be Head of State, for example, would presumably be quite irrelevant for the more than 99% of us that have no such ambitions, and I see no reason why a republic would encourage civil society or volunteerism. It is unclear to me how the act of cutting one set of international ties would help foster others, and – given that we are governed by those we elect – the concept of “popular sovereignty” does not seem to have any real meaning. Practically speaking, I still see nothing to be gained from what you call a “more appropriate constitutional foundation”. It seems like a triumph of symbolism over substance, and I don’t like what it symbolises.