I think it is clear beyond argument that the majority of Australians favour a republic. The issue is simply how the head of that republic would be appointed. A majority of the majority that favour the republic want to elect the head. The political class is determined to retain that function for itself. Stand-off.

Had the referendum offered an elected head we'd already be a republic and would be spared the constant whine that we are somehow degraded by having a monarch.

Hopefully the majority of the majority will stand its ground and force the political class to relent. Although I favour a republic, until I'm offered one that allows me to vote for the president (or whatever), I'll continue to vote "No".

I'm with MHAZE on this. I voted against the 1999 republic proposal because it was a republic of the rich, controlled by the politicians, and because the proposed revisions to the Constitution retained and codified the reserve powers (ie the anti-democratci powers to sack an elected Government.

If the model had been an elected president we would be a republic now.

But Turnbull couldn't allow more power in the hands of the people. It is anathema to him and most politicians.

mhaze,

On what evidence do you base your assertion that 'it is clear beyond argument that the majority of Australians favour a republic'?

Like it or not, most of the Australian population are of UK-Irish descent and see the queen as representing a significant tie to the home country.

The only evidence you have is the last referendum.

gw

Why would anyone who is in favour of democracy want to give up our robust independent system of government to replace it with something based on the EU? The EU is one of the least democratic and least accountable organisations in the western world.

We are already completely independent of Britain - the Queen is known as the "Queen of Australia" here. It's not just the British Monarchy, it's also the Australian Monarchy. The Governor-General fulfills the role of Head of State. Australia is one of the world's longest running democracies, and many of the world's most stable and democratic countries are also monarchies.

Since there are six models for a republic this shows that replublicans still can't make up their minds what sort of republic they would like.

It's not a foregone conclusion that an Australian Republic would be more democratic that the monarchy, or would protect democracy as well as the monarchy does.

For some reason most republicans don't seem to understand why the 1999 referendum failed, and why one would fail again if held today. The best comment on the republic, in my opinion, was made by a broken hill miner (a solid labor voter) I met in 1993, when Keating was PM and Hewson was Opposition leader. His comment was:

"I would have to vote NO. What an opportunity to stick it up Keating, without having to elect Hewson."

The sums up what most Australians think of politicians. It was also expressed by a chinese shopkeeper who said: "When I arrived ten years ago I was shocked to find that Australians considered the government to be the enemy of the people. I now realise they were right". My reply was: "You've assimilated".

The fact that this struggle is between the elite and the people, (with the people having the final say in a referendum) is another reason that success will be elusive. Why can't it be recognised that most people were delighted when Kerr used the royal perogative to sack Whitlam, and that the Governor-General should be renamed "Prime Ministerial pisser-offer in Chief".

Until the political class rises far above the current standard, epitomised by Belinda Neal, they will be swearing allegiance to Her Majesty for the indefinite future.

As a mater of logic (Jieh Yung Lo) is possibly right; Australia should become a republic.
- A closer examination of ABS figures and research shows that a significant number of Australians actually trace their origins to other than the UK (40+ % and increasing).
- It could be logically argued that ALL non aboriginals are immigrants.
- However all parts of these cultural practices must comply with Australian laws.
- It is a rationally undeniable fact that sooner than later the WASP(C) culture will become a minority. Given where Australia is located an outwardly more independent, tolerant stance makes more long term sense.
The Constitution reflects the 19th century, Circumstances, thoughts and attitudes most of which don’t serve us well in the 21st century.
- Surely reality and fairness dictate that it makes more LOGICAL sense for Australia to develop a UNIQUE Australian system, culture et sec.
NB That doesn’t mean that anglophiles shouldn’t be proud of the good bits of their culture and neither should other peoples give up their individual heritages either.
- However these cultures should be equal parts of the whole.
- If we were to become a republic it should be a coupled with a rewriting of the Constitution to bring the nation into the 21st century otherwise it would mean upheaval for no practical gain
1. The issue is a matter of timing the nation needs to commit to a need to search for a new model, a referendum “Should to commit to another referendum in (3yr?) of possible models (incl. “no change”) Y or N.
2. This new model should be the product of extensive consultation, not a political manipulation like the Howard farce. At the end of the given time a short list of alternatives should be presented to the public for in the 2nd referendum. It stands to reason that “do nothing” would be an option too. (that’s two bites for the "no change")
This would allow the govt. to pursue relevant changes to update the current Westminster system if it won.