the leigh comedy hour: today your favourite far right ideologue pretends concern for democracy...fools nobody of course.

but hey, keep that lighthearted laugh a minute banter coming leigh, we really appreciate your efforts.

Goodonya Peter. It seems absurd to me that a foreigner living far from us has huge powers over our parliament, our laws and our military. I'd much prefer to have an Australian President elected by popular vote from a short list supported by a 2/3 parliamentary majority. Bring it on Kev!

The last referendum was a vote against Howards proposed style of republic that he wanted.
The people want to design their own republic.
The referendum vote should say.
Do you want a republic Yes or no.
If that is posative u work out the type of republic u want.
Howard already had a style of republic which no one wanted.

The phrase "scraping the bottom of the barrel" comes to mind.

>>the British monarchy with its inbuilt sectarian hatred and past strong links to the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler (Edward VIII - "Hitler is a great man and the saviour of Europe" and the Queen's Nazi in-laws and nephew Adolf) is incompatible with the Australian values of decency and the fair go.<<

You imply that the monarchy was pro-Hitler, when the entire country put itself on the line against the Nazis.

I think that is probably the silliest idea I have yet seen on this forum.

If that's the best anti-monarchist case you can muster, no wonder the referendum failed.

I am pro-republic myself. But the stupidity with which the arguments continue to be made - this being a classic example - will keep the monarchists in business ad infinitum.

"We learned that if we are to have success in a future republican referendum then we must follow the people rather than expect them to follow us"

Wow Peter, Greg Barns and I are choking on our humble pie aren't we?
Your sneering tone throughout your article clearly shows you really haven't learned your lesson at all.

After a constricted referendum between a bunch of snotty, pouty, elitist hacks who despised the public's input (along with the input of decent smart blokes like Ted Mack)- and a monarchist- who both ultimately cut out any palatable republic options out of hopes of retaining a monarchy or hoping the masses will be desperate enough to pick the republic YOU wanted, I doubt many people are too excited about another bout of such shameful, dodgy antics.

But I'm sure your new stance of grudgingly trying to 'pander' to the ignorant masses with a few catchy slogans based on vague assumptions of what the public wants (where such assumptions came from I would like to know) will definitely charm the broader public into facilitating YOUR project for you!

But seeing as most Republicans will accept no LESS than a democratically-elected head of state, the only chance of a Republic revival would be if the ARM were abolished and fresh blood of more democratically-minded and less sanctimonious individuals took your place.

But to convince ME- just get rid of the governor general altogether (waste of money) and propose a more democratic and modern constitution for Australia (eg, based on some of those in mainland Europe).

The more the issue waffles about ceremony or symbolism, there more I switch off. And as long as the people pushing a republic staunchly believe Australians will appoint Rove McManus as President (or that being the case, that this is bad compared to the kind of person YOU would pick), I reckon everyone else will too.

Have a REALLY good day!

Hazza

There is one aspect of the republic debate that no-one else has mentioned, and that is this:

I, like many others in Australia, profoundly distrust politicians. When they make a statement, the main thing is the question of tense. That is, have they just lied, are they now lying, or are they about to lie? The recent revelations about Margaret Thatcher telling Gorbachev to disregard what she was saying publicly and not bring down the Berlin Wall is just a case in point.

One thing I love about the Federal Constitution is that section 42 requires all members of Parliament, including republicans, before they can take their seat, to swear or affirm that they will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty. The section cannot be changed by the politicians, it would require the people to change it at a referendum.

This means that we have an ethics test built into the Constitution. As they take the oath I can judge whether they are being truthful, honest and sincere, or whether they are lying in their teeth.

The thing I would really love would be for a new republic referendum to be submitted to the people, with the support of ALL politicians and ALL the media, and for the people to vote NO.