Oh dear Plerdsus, I think you're stretching the truth a bit here. As a Commonwealth citizen you're entitled to vote in the UK, if you're a resident. To become a resident you need a visa. To get a visa you need a UK parent or grandparent for an Ancestry Visa (or be under 30 for a temporary Working Holidaymaker Visa). Otherwise, it's a Work Permit (if you've managed to snare a job) or the Highly Skilled Migrant Program. In other words, more or less the same arrangement as here in Australia.

The Germans and Italians (and anyone else with an EU passport) who scoot past the Aliens queue don't need a visa and are automatically granted the right to work, unlike most of us Aussies. Mind you, if you're an Aussie with a Bulgarian or Finnish passport, no worries, you'll be right.

"Please try and get you facts right." Indeed, Plerdsus, indeed.....

To say that now is the time for an Australian head of state is laughable. After too many years of Howard, the years of Keating (I didn't mind him, but I know many of you did) and so on, who would you trust?

Australians don't trust their leaders. After so many lies in this decade, so many disappointments, no economic surplus, no glitch in the stock exchange will manipulate our minds to actually trust a leader.

This is the time when the argument for an Australian head of state has hit its lowest since Federation. Before Federation, no Colony which became "States" trusted each other. Now, after Howard, we can't even trust ourselves with a vote.

Hold back, take a deep breath, and try to see the situation logically.

Why is it that Australia Day celebrates a penal colony and bondage? We don't celebrate Emancipation day when NSW was no longer a convict colony. Why?

You want leadership and control? Most just want freedom and fairness. Then the leaders earn our trust.

The real reason that monarchists get wound up at the suggestion of another referendum is because they know Australia is a hair's breadth away from becoming a republic - if the process isn't reduced to a farce by monarchist politicians.

It was the convoluted choice between "models" that got the thumbs-down last time, not the republic. That's why, when polled on the simple question "would you like Australia to be a republic", Australians ovewhelmingly respond "yes".

as with any movement of a political nature...

"WHAT'S IN IT FOR ME" is the key to understanding it.

"Lets have a republic".. and I ask.. 'why' ? "what's in it and for who" ?

The same applies to the monarchists.

I suggest that at the cutting edge of any major political movement there is an unspoken agenda. That agenda will ALWAYS be 'portrayed' as something which should be attractive to large numbers of people... because change requires votes.

SO... I raise the question "WHAT'S IN IT?"

I agree with Boaz.What do i personally get when we become a republic?
Will i be better off financially?Will i get better health care?Will housing be more affordable?Will we have better politicians,that don't tell lies and work for the good of the middle as well as upper income earners.If nothing is gonna change except how we vote and what we call whomever is in charge,Why would we even bother.A new flag,a president and being called a republic won't change a bloody thing.

Well, um, yeah…….of course!!

Anyone who wants change simply coz they think we need to break traditional ties with Britain has got to be a drongo. Any change in our governmental methodology has GOT to bring us significant improvements. And therein lies the great problem, because the powers that work towards making our current system as dodgy as it is will hold great sway in shaping any new system.

Please see my two previous posts.