Why not just vote to remove reference to the Monarch in the Constitution ? Wouldn't that make us a republic, or at least a commonwealth ?

There are two factors in Australian society that delay the adoption of a republic-

1 Compulsory voting, the apathetic and ignorant will usually vote "no"

2 Too many Australians still have the "cultural cringe", they need to be reassured by the magical connection with the British monarchy.

I might get shot at for this, but I am really appalled by the lack of cogent arguments being put forward by those on the Republican side of the debate. It seems that all we get is bluster and name calling of those who take a differing point of view.

How about producing something more scholarly, with some substance. You may then convince those who are undecided, that perhaps, you have a good case. At the moment, I would suggest that we have more important things for the nation to consider, such as how we should be managing the environment to preserve it for future generations.

David

I concur with the desire to become a Republic and also believe that the last referendum was contrived to ensure a vote of No.

The overriding message was that most Australians wanted to be able to vote for their President and the 1999 referendum did not provide that option, instead offering only one choice - a bipartisan appointment by Parliament.

I voted Yes as I do not have an issue with a bipartisan parliamentary appointment, particularly if the role was to be very much a ceremonial one similar to the current role of the Governor-General. But the point is that Australians did not get to opportunity to choose the method of appointment and that was the farce of the 1999 referendum.

Ways a President can be appointed (From Wikipedia):

"Alternative methods for selecting a president

Election
- by the federal Parliament alone
- by federal and state Parliaments (as in India)
- by a popular vote (as in the Republic of Ireland)

Selection
- by the Prime Minister
- by consensus among the Government and Opposition
- by a constitutional council (known as the McGarvie Model)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_republic_referendum,_1999

I've got to concur with the author on this one - I'm firmly in the camp wanting a republic, but I voted against the model put forth last time for the reasons outlined in this piece.
That's why it bothers me a little when monarchists try to point to the rejection at the last republic referendum as evidence Australians want a monarchist model.

That's crap. One day I hope to see a genuine referendum on a republic, where the public chooses the governor general. If that's rejected, then I'd accept the will of the majority - but not these half arsed models.

The last two are good points.

I ask, "Why are you in favour of a republic?" Note, I do not ask "Why do you think monarchists are dills?"

David