I am not attached to monarchies per se, nor am I opposed to republics per se. I am also not especially attached to our monarchy for its own sake, but I do see certain important advantages in it. I see no particular value in generic arguments about other monarchies and other republics.

While I disagree with David about what would be achieved by cutting our ties with the monarchy, I agree with him that (provided the right model could be found) a switch to a republic would not instantly blot out the good sense of the Australian people.

Achieving a majority in all states is, of course, an enormous ambition, but it would be utterly pointless to aim for anything less.

Response to Plerdsus:

This latest post, I cannot fault it's factual basis or its argument. The only mitigating point is that in proposing a directly-elected Head of State is not exactly repeating the same reform as the 1999 referendum.

The main groups* which need to be held are:
1. Conservatives sympathetic to a republic but worried about change
2. Progressives who demand a directly-elected presidency
3. Those in less populated states and rural areas, wary of centralism.

(* of course, it is far more complex than this in reality)

There's no reason why groups 1 and 2 can be held with a directly-elected president with no real powers who replaces the Queen, but there is a change of mindset required for active republicans (those that have thought about republicanism for years, sticking to old ideas). For us the real work is under point 3 - you cannot provide for this in the constitution, but progress is being made here by my colleague Dr Peter Carden (see page 6 of the Copernican Gazette, http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~dlatimer/archive/Gazette-Issue1-Final.pdf)