Laurie, you said that the 1789 revolution in France "showed there was no 'divine right of kings'", but that had already been clearly shown almost a century earlier across the Channel. The French just hadn't been paying attention during the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688.

I quite agree that Flinty's argument is a little over the top. I don't think a republic would lead to violence in the streets, just to increased power for the members of Australia's elites that would manage to get themselves elected.

Yes, things have changed between Australia and the UK since the 1930s, but we should be putting more effort into building better ties rather than cutting the ones that still exist. We share our monarchy our institutions, our basic values, our culture not only with the UK, but with New Zealand and Canada: these are countries that we should work more closely with, not pushing away.

Thank you Mr Flint. You have presented the best argument I have seen for quite some time on the merits of an independent republic with an appointed President - NOT popularly elected. Which is basically what we have now. Remove a redundant, foreign monarch. Rename G-G to 'President'. Get on with the things that really matter.

The sooner all the monarchists pass away or lose their vitality, the better we can move towards properly independent nationhood operating essentially the same political and governance system we have today.

Its the only way a republic can work in Australia. So forget the French, American, Iraqi, Russian or any other model. Recognise that what we have today works perfectly well, and a few small tweaks will enable us to modernise to true independence without losing any effectiveness. So thanks again Mr Flint.

David your analysis of the danger of an Australian Republic is absolutely correct and I commend you on your analysis.The very thought that some working class yob that dont talk proper being the President of Australia fills me with horror.As you would know the position requires ability's that can only come from Royal in-breeding stock, that has been hundreds of years in the making.The only person vaguely qualified for the job in Australia is sadly now passed on, Joe Bjelke Peterson.

Joe having dined with the Monarch had the necessary training in cermony and decorum to eat cucumber sandwiches correctly and not to slurp his soup.I know he suffered some what from incontinence in his later years but feel he wouldn't have farted in front of guests. an absolute must if one is to entertain oveseas dignitary's,as head of state.

Can you imagine the scene of one of our more robust leaders in the Government,after a gutsful of cucumber sanwiches and some expesive plonk perish the thought.

Have to disagree with you there PhilB. Ray Bloody Martin for Prez! I think channel 9's done with him.

I don't give a damn, who is head of state, its totally irelivant to REAL AUSTRALIANS.
My concern is that, if we change one word of the constitution, we will have high court actions for for 5 years & a huge windfall for the legal profession.
If we change 100 words we may find the high court ruling that black is now white, & we have to drive backwards, in the middle of the road. We do not have sensible justice, we have the law, manipulated by the profession for its own ends.
I can not understand how we can have lawyers, who have spent their lives, touting for the business of criminals, appointed to judge these criminals, who have been their clients & associats for so long.
We will not have justice until we elect our judges, & that for limited terms.
As you may notice, I don't trust them, & don,t want to give them another chance to change the LAW to the detrement of the many.