I too agree that the complexity of the question was the reason that the referendum failed, they should have asked the simple question first Do you want Australia to become a republic? Yes or No?

But that is exactly why the Republican movements are so divided they wanted to do everything with undue haste. They actually were leaving the Australian people out of the process.

I personally would want to vote for the President... but I would say in the constitution that the President cannot be an ex-Politician and could not be party affiliated!

But hey I want a genuine independent speaker like a judge, not a person from the Govts side... Call me weird but democracy demands an independent arbitrator in our houses of parliament.

All the arguments about seperating church and state and the justice being blind and unbiased go out the window when the arbitrator in our houses of parliament are a member of the party that holds the most seats.

I'd rather have independent arbitrators who forced ministers to tell the truth and answer the question than rush to a republic. Who independently assessed a question out of order and prevented question times being a joke.

But again from the Democrats perspective they have to regain their cred in the eyes of the voting public and the Republican debate is a non-event in that area. Lyn... lead... we need a strong third party in Australia!

I hate to waste a post on the valueless but... here goes

LYNN..who ?

I guess that's why the Dems are still wandering about in the wilderness.

They are so far out of touch with the average Aussie they blame the PM for the public having minds of their own.

:)

I was born in England to strongly monarchist parents. By the time I was 17, I had decided for myself that I was not a monarchist. When I turned 18, the Korean war was being fought and I was called up. I would have had no objection to swearing allegiance to Britain, but I was forced, under implied threat of severe punishment, to swear allegiance to the Queen.

Our parliamentarians are in virtually the same situation. They have been democratically elected, by Australians, but they cannot take their rightfully earned place in parliament without swearing allegiance to an unelected foreign person. This is similar in principle to confessing under torture to something you haven't done, you really have no option.

I felt so strongly about this that I would not become an Australian citizen until the requirement to swear allegiance to the Queen was made optional.

I believe that a simple "Yes" or "No" to Australia becoming a republic would have overwhelming public support. No need to rush after that, the details could be worked out with as much care as was necessary.

The fact that this article was written by a Democrat is irrelevant. There are republicans right across the whole political spectrum and the same sentiments could just as easily have been expressed by a member of any other party.

Response to Plerdsus:

If you are so carefully reading the constitution, why are you suggesting the Queen can sack the Prime Minister? What has that got to do with what the GG sacking the PM. The constitution is pretty clear on this point.

Everyone is aware that the name of the current monarch is substituted. Do you think people believe that the oath continues to be made to Queen Victoria? And what difference does it make to the argument. The word "successors" is not substituted. Bottom line remains that parliamentarians can debate republicanism and they do.

Even John Howard is allowed to say that accepting Charles as King of Australia is a matter for the Australian people: "if they want to change the rules they will." http://www.itv.com/news/index_1850533.html (does someone know where there's a transcript for the interview?)

I don't accept that the Queen can disallow a constitutional amendment bill approved by the Australian people, but you apparently do and you say we should find comfort in it! Would you like to clarify?

And I suggest you shouldn't imply the majority of Australians are mentally deficient.

I'm always amused by people who say that if the question was yes/no to the question "Do you support a republic?" the results would be different.

Referenda to amend the Constitution are similar to a division in Parliament when voting on an amendment to a clause in a Bill. A specific proposal is either supported or opposed - there is no option of "I like the idea but not the detail". The amendment is there - and it is Yes or No. The 1999 referendum was the same - you liked the specific change, or you didn't. This dichotomy is how change is achieved. It is incumbent on proponents of change to satisfy people within this dichotomy.

Of course, I suppose there *could* be an in-principle plebiscite. But why do republicans think they would win that in the white heat of a campaign? Monarchists could easily run the line that this was writing a 'blank cheque' for a republic, which would be a very effective campaign line. But if the republicans *did* win the plebiscite, what does it achieve? Is there agreement on what a 'republic' is? A supporter of the status quo could argue Australia was a "crowned republic" and vote Yes. The point is a plebiscite would change nothing, would be meaningless because its result could be interpreted in all sorts of ways, and mightn't go the way the republicans want.

This brings us to what I think most republican activists really want by having a plebiscite, and a republic. They're not interested so much in what they want to replace the status quo with - they want an opportunity to give a symbolic 'up yours' to whatever frustrations they associate with the monarchy - whether it's 1975, Keating-style sectarianism, the "Leaving of Liverpool" kids, or queues at Heathrow (among others).

"Elizabeth Windsor" is looking pretty good at this point compared to the alternative (s), Sen. Allison.