Plerdsus begins with the silly idea that parliamentarians cannot support republicanism because of their oath. The full oath is to "be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law." Note the use of the words "successors", indicating that parliamentarians may lawfully discuss republicanism. How could be be otherwise in a democracy?

He continues by talking about "the comfort that so many people gain from the fact that the Queen, either directly or through her representatives is standing by, ready to sack, and ready to disallow." The Queen is not standing by in this sense at all. It is only under some republican proposals that the Head of State is such a position.

Likewise Narcissist says the monarch is there "To defend the people. To defend us against unscrupulous business, corrupt politicians, and despotic laws." This is a myth. In Australia, these matters are delt with by ASIC, ICAC, ARC, HREEOC ect... or ultimately by us the voters.

Finally Bull says republics have "a dreadful history of instability" which is patently false -- ignoring the modern history of monarchies around the world (Russia, Romania, Greece, Japan, China, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Turkey), ignoring current events (Nepal, Thailand) and most importantly the historical context (eg Poland, Denmark during WWII, colonialism in Africa.) He also says the Queen can sack the PM, which is untrue.

To Perseus: Why not save your sarcasm for the Prime Minister or Premiers who do have the job of "clearing congestion" or "saving the planet." I guess you'd have voted against federation in the 1890's for the same reasons?

Ulimately we have a set of comments which are not based upon the Australian constitutional system and not refective of Australian democracy, Australian history or political history in general.

Athletes arriving in Melbourne for the Commonwealth Games think its most disrespectful not to play "God Save the Queen" when the Queen is present.

Is Lizzie relevant to Australia - I hope not!

Do I care - no, unless she costs a sizeable portion of our national budget.

Thanks Lyn Allison for your thoughtful comments. I am not a Democrat but I recognise sense when I see it. Do not be discouraged by the tripe and insults that are directed towards you and your comments. Some people feel great when they put others down. They feel taller and do not know any other way to feel good.

Please keep making sense and help bring on maturity to our country; bring on the Republic.

Thanks for the excellent article Lyn, I agree with your republican sentiments.
The violent and contempuous tone of monarchist comments in reply only convinces me more of the rightness of the republican cause. Here's a tip for monarchists: the Queen does not have the power to sack the Prime Minister. Even if she did, this would be totally unacceptable, as it would mean an unelected foreigner would be sacking an elected Australian Prime Minister. As for the Governor-General, yes he does theoretically have the power to sack the Prime Minister, but he should not have that power because is not elected either directly or indirectly by the Australian people.
I am republican because, unlike monarchists, I am loyal to Australia and its people. Monarchists have to realise that loyalty to a foreign monarch is inconsistent with loyalty to Australia and its people.

David Latimer,

I always thought that republicans were a bit deficient in mental capacity, but I thought at least that they could read. Anyone who cares to read the constitution will see that after the oath of allegiance that politicians are required to take there is the note: "The name of the King or Queen of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time". It is great fun to debate these issues, but at least let's get the facts straight.

As far as the Queen exercising her powers is concerned, we were fed that line of tosh in 1975 when commentators said that the Governor-General could not sack the Prime Minister and must asccept his advice. I particularly remember someone called Whitlam who fed us that line. The fact that it has not yet been necessary for the Queen to excercise her powers of disallowance is testimony to the effectiveness of our constitution, which is the fourth oldest on the world

I believe Narcissist was correct in his assessment that the referendum failed because of the complexity of the question and the framing of the issue. If the question was put simply "Are you in favour of becoming a Republic?" The answer may well have been overwhelmingly in favour.

plerdsus: I believe the Constitution refers to Queen Victoria and all her heirs and successors which is fairly straight forward as far as interpretation is concerned. I also understand, though I could be mistaken, that the Hawke Government's Australia Act of 1984 effectively reduced the Monarch's powers to little more than ceremonial though until the Constitution is repatriated and redrafted, the ceremonial apron strings will still evidence a puerile existence as a country in our own right.

The time will come when we will follow the path of Canada and 'repatriate' the Constitution. It is widely held that the Constitution is an Australian document which, of course, it is not. It is merely Clause 9 of a British Act of Parliament. The document that creates us as a nation is owned by another country. It is a rather absurd and anachronistic situation.

I really can't understand the reticence in drafting and owning our own foundational document. Canada sees no conflict in its independence whilst retaining its place in the Commonwealth. Australia, surely, has the maturity to do the same.