David Latimer wrote, "The main argument made by supporters of an Australian republic is that it is inappropriate for someone in a distant country to be their head of state". What a beat up. IT IS JUST A CEREMONIAL GIG!

If there is any serious representing of the country to be made it is, and should be, done by the Prime Minister. In it's current form the monarchy is a quaint bit of colour that we can add to a ceremony, a bit like having bagpipes. It will draw a crowd and make a bit of spectacle.

But an elected head of state, no matter how many times you might claim it wouldn't, will attract all sorts of baggage in an implied mandate. And this implied mandate will operate in a manner that diminishes the primacy of Parliament.

The clear protocol at present is that the Queen, in all matters relating to Australia, does what she is told to do by the Parliament. As she should.

But I guess the <2% Democrat vote in South Australia should be enough to let, soon to be, Ms Alison, know that voters want their elected representatives to concentrate on real issues, here and now.

David Latimer suggests that all non-republicans are “supporters of the status quo”, which is not the case. I, for example, think that Australia should be actively working towards closer ties with New Zealand, Canada and the UK, and I see the shared symbolism of the monarchy as a positive aspect of what we already have. To me, abandoning that shared symbol would be a backward step.

David also says that “the main argument made by supporters of an Australian republic is that it is inappropriate for someone in a distant country to be their head of state”. I really do not see distance as an issue. By the standards of most of the world’s countries, Perth is a very long way from Canberra, but it doesn’t mean that people in WA cannot be represented by a Governor General who lives in our capital. If distance were such a problem, Australia’s federation would never have happened.

Most importantly, David suggests that “a ‘foreigner’ ... cannot represent Australia, not to itself, nor to the rest of the world”. This is the real crux of the matter for me: I do not see our Queen as a foreigner, nor do I see Britain as a foreign country. Like all Australians of my generation, I was born British. This legal identity was quite undemocratically stripped from me in the 1970s, at about the same time that Kiwis and Canadians also lost their British identity and the UK itself took the plunge into what is now the EU.

Some people may see this gradual severing of family connections as a good thing and want to take it further, but I do not. In a world where most countries are attempting to work more closely together, some of those among us want to symbolically cut the ties that link us to precisely those societies with which we have most in common.

I know that mine is a minority view, but I see this tendency as intensely parochial: the latest manifestation of what we used to call the cultural cringe. And I find that very sad.

I said before the main argument made by supporters of an Australian republic is that it is inappropriate for someone in a distant country to be their head of state".

What self-respecting country finds it appropriate to have a Head of State from another country? The above responses from Ian and Perseus show concept of respect for Australian independence. Indeed, Ian says that the UK is not even another country.

Perseus just says the position of Head of State is unimportant. Well in that case, stop arguing and let the republicans make their case.

Lyn Allison has shown just how little she understands the Constitution under which she sits in Parliament. Contrary to Allison's assertion, the Queen does not have the constitutiona power to veto any decision made at referendum by the Australian people. Perhaps she will tell us in which section of the Constitution she found this non-existant power.

If perchance she is referring to section 59, it is an otiose power – functionless, of no practical effect. It has never been used, and since 1926 could never be used.

Lyn,

The results in the South Australian election show ... you're party is now walking the tightrope of non-existance.

Senator John Coulter was quoted saying:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18532102-29277,00.html

I can only imagine the heartbreak that the still loyal members of the Democrats and those non-members who still live in hope feel today. They see what was once a shining light in our system, crashing to Earth with such a consistent thud.

South Australia was the Democrats strongest State. It was in the past their powerbase. Has the penny dropped yet?

I even came across this site: http://www.megsdesk.com/ Is Meg still a Senator?...lol She has a desk - does she still have a seat?...Ha!

The simple truth is the Democrats are making the mistake that most pollies make. They fail to apologise when they are wrong. Is this false pride - afterall didn't they correctly call on John Howard to apologise to the aborigines? Why can't they do the same here?

As most of their core voters probably believe they were wrong during the GST debacle they should apologise to the public. Lyn - There is strength in an apology!

They apologised to the Aborigines correctly so why can't you apologise on the GST?

Losing Natasha Stott Despoja as their leader, the best profiled Senator was also a mistake.

I said in another post that Lyn may be leader in the most critical time for the Democrats.

She has only a few shots left in her arsenal but only a few weeks to use them.

1. Apologise for the GST errors the party made under the leader at that time!
2. Encourage Natasha to return as leader and/or apologise to Natasha publicly if she refuses (who could blame her?)
3. Stick to core issues - the ones the voters want to hear about.

We will all await your urgent reaction to the election failure in SA at your website http://www.democrats.org.au/

Some of us still want a viable, relevant third party Lyn, and you are now in a corner with only three options... lead, follow or get out of the way!

The CROWN is a ceremonial position at the moment represented in the person of the Queen of Australia. She holds that office which represents the people of Australia, while she is in Australia personally. At all other times it is the Governor General who represents the people of Australia in a ceremonial position (the Crown). The final authority to dismiss a Government who he feels is acting unconstitutionally resides in him. He is the caretaker of the constitution guarding the agreement we the people of Australia have with our elected lawmakers.

Elected Presidents who are also lawmakers and not merely guardians of Constitutions is a threat to stability. If they had their way elected lawmakers would happily violate their agreements with the people.