Consider David Flint's statement that "five of the world’s seven oldest continuous democracies are Westminster systems." If he means constitutional monarchies, I guess this must be Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK and the USA. This list does nothing more than inform us of which countries escaped the ravages of World War II through succesful defence or staying neutral.

The Republics of Costa Rica (since 1882), Mexico (1917) and Finland (1919) are the sixth, ninth and tenth oldest continuous liberal democracies. So 2 of 7 becomes 5 of 10. How unspectacular!

Regardless, it’s a potato argument (People who eat potatoes commit suicide or have car accidents or get cancer. So don't eat potatoes!) Use of this type of argument is an insult to the real lessons of world history.

As for the Commonwealth, Flint says monarchists "were denounced as liars" and "the Secretary General of the Commonwealth agreed with us". The Secretary General certainly did not, so we should rightly denounce Flint as doubly a liar.

Monarchists have an important role to make the NO case in any proposal for republican reform. Lies, exaggeration and lazy argument diminish their capacity to assist the Australian people to understand the NO side of the debate.

A very good friend of mine has a doormat outside her front door that says "Oh no, not you again". I feel the need for one of those right now.

About two thirds of the good professor's rationale seems to rest upon the failure of the Weimar Republic, and on the uncomfortable gyrations of a post-war nation to establish a system that avoided the elision of democracy into dictatorship that the country had experienced in the thirties. In the broadest view, given their starting point in 1945, plus the upheavals caused by the reintegration of East Germany in 1990, I don't see too many weak spots in the implementation of their political structure.

Using as further evidence of instability the current appeal of a couple of noisy Bundestag member against the September election is a trifle disingenuous too. (Heck, professor, the main objector is a Green, for heaven's sake!) You say "On July 23, the President announced to the nation: 'I am convinced the constitutional conditions for dissolving parliament exist.' Which, of course, they did not."

Your evidence please? Are you seriously offering yourself as an expert on German constitutional matters? Or simply presenting a layman's view, couched in terms that enable you to pretend that you are? Such arrogance.

As well as calling the Chancellor a liar, you conveniently ignore the fact that in a recent poll over 70% of the German electorate agreed with him - the coalition has lost the ability to govern, which is the reason he called the vote and forced the election. As for the closeness of the vote, you have to realize that in any go-to-the-people situation, there will be a number of members voting out of fear that they will lose their pay-and-perks, just like every other bunch of pollies.

Bricks without straw, professor. Bricks without straw.

oh, I get it. Stupid me. Westminister republics wouldn't appoint people like DF to prominent boards like the ABC.
Perhaps that high court judge gig is just around the corner Dave?

David Flint: High Court judges should be appointed on merit, not trendy notions.http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16081280%255E7583,00.html

Quote:

"The new justice can expect to be denounced for appearing to be conservative, and therefore a government toady".

Nahh, we wouldn't say that about you Dave!!

Let's be absolutely clear about the DOUBLE LIE in the article.

David Flint says republicans "did not even know that to stay in the Commonwealth we had to have no opposition from any one of the other 52 members of the Commonwealth [1st lie]. When monarchists pointed this out we were denounced as liars. But to the embarrassment of the republicans, the Secretary General of the Commonwealth agreed with us." [2nd lie]

The Secretary General said "Let me make it absolutely clear that, whatever the outcome of the referendum, there is no question of Australia's membership of the Commonwealth being in doubt ... The position of Her Majesty The Queen as Head of the Commonwealth is unaffected by such a constitutional change, and the procedures which need to be followed to confirm any new status would, in this event, be a formality."

To confirm my quote, readers may check the source:
http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=34701

One remember that David Flint is not just twisting the truth, but deliberately lies. It is a shame that such a person is regarded by anyone as representative of monarchists.

I would like to see the debate get well beyond the simple opposition of "YES, republic" or "NO, stay as we are", because neither of these positions represents my view of what Australia is. I do not feel, as some of us seem to, that the monarchy is an affront to my sense of national identity. For me, that national identity is merely one of many layers, and the monarchy connects us to a wider world beyond the nation

I therefore see three "head of state" options:

1. Acknowledge the cultural and institutional ties of which the monarchy is a part, and seek to draw closer to the other core Commonwealth countries: especially New Zealand, Canada and the UK. (the CANZUK case)

2. Repudiate those ties, set the limits of our world at the current borders of our nation and install a republic. (the YES case)

3. Retain the monarchy in the present situation, which is anomalous but has worked well so far. (the NO case)

Feeling connected with a world beyond Australia is not the same as denying that we are Australians, it is more a matter of putting it into a broader perspective. Drawing closer to the other Commonwealth countries – even eventually forming a CANZUK federation – would not involve losing our Australian identity, but would simply add another layer.

To take a sporting example, if Queenslanders and New South Welshmen can happily recognise each other as fellow Australians one day and bitter State of Origin rivals the next, there is no reason why Queenslanders, New South Welshmen and New Zealanders could not see themselves as fellow ANZACs by day and Bledisloe Cup opponents by night.

My objection to republicanism is not that it opposes the monarchy, but that it opposes the community of nations that share the monarchy with us.

Ian describes the republican YES case as repudiating our Commonwealth ties and setting the limits of our world at the boarders of our nation.

This is utter nonsense. Simply ridiculous.

Republicans strongly support our Commonwealth ties and Australia's engagement in the world without qualification.