It is rumoured that the devious republican-pushers will use the question 'do you want an Australian as our head of state’, or words to that effect, when they next force a tedious, un-asked for referendum on us. They won't ask 'do you believe that Australia should become a republic’ because there is every chance that the answer would be NO.

So, those of us wanting to continue they way we are will need to vote NO. However, many people, not really understanding the meaningless 'head of state’ waffle (and many Australians think that the Prime Minister us our head of state) will vote YES out of 'loyalty’, and an overall yes vote could - probably would - ensue.

The next step would be to decide what sort of president we would have: appointment or elected. The urgers of course want the elected sort - a politician's’ republic, giving our incompetent, also devious, political class even more power over us than they already have.

Those of us who are happy with the way things are, and who don't want any more debt incurred by a totally unnecessary change, should be getting ready NOW, because it is coming at us again, sometime soon.

Hey ttbn,
I'd be willing to look at the pro's and con's, however if they jump straight to the obvious selling point, then it tells me that they want me to buy into something, so I'd really want to take a look at the fine print and I suspect that I wouldn't be too keen on whatever their real reasons for selling it are.
- But I'd give it a look, even if only to find out what's wrong with it.
We're too tied to globalism and forced leftist agendas.
Our western intelligence agencies are more or less all integrated, what's really going to change?
Likely nothing about the word 'republic' will equate to self sufficency or independent.

There's another topic I'm starting to see which has much more importance, we need some kind of fairness and non bias in the media, and an internet bill of rights.

The censorship and demonetisation of right wing conservative websites and viewpoints, social engineering, Islam and its support from the left, portrayal of white as racist if we complain...

Without that free speech and a level playing field on major online platforms, no matter the topic it will just be a losing battle, and a slow noose.
The system is totally gamed against us for this anti-nationalist globalist New World Order agenda.
They are destroying our sovereignty, our identity, dividing us against each other, indoctrinating the kids, attacking the male role model, destroying the family, promoting ridiculousness and perversion, making us dumb and decadent and powerless.

The West is being systematically destroyed from within how can anyone not see it?

There is no logical reason for Australia to become a republic. The proponents of the nonsense are the the very last people that one would say had the country's well-being at heart. They are the usual Leftists pushing for change - on and on - merely for the sake of change. They are up to no good.

We have more important things to do in Australia than to wantonly, like spoilt children, wreck what works well, at horrendous costs we cannot afford, just because people like our grandstanding, but incompetent, Prime Minister and a weirdo who thinks he's a pirate says we should.

I agree with you TTBN; there's no logical, nor practical reason whatsoever, for Australia to become a Republic. We're doing quite nicely as we are in my view. Why try to fix something if it isn't faulty or broken. We have all the autonomy we want or need with the present system, so why meddle with?

Our beloved Monarch doesn't impinge or intrude upon our affairs? So what's the point of changing things? And if we did, how would we select a Head of Government, and for how long, and with what powers. Leave it alone, the current system works very well indeed for our needs in my humble opinion?

What I don't quite understand is -

We have a foreign Head of State - a British Queen.
Our Members of Parliament have to swear allegiance to
her when taking office. When she travels overseas - she
represents the interests of England - not ours. And yet,
Members of Parliament who find that they happen to have
British citizenship someWhere in their background - cannot
according to Section 44 of our Constitution keep their jobs
and have to renounce their British citizenship before they
can serve in our Parliament. Does that make sense?

Foxy,

It doesn't make sense because the framers of the Constitution never intended British Citizenship to be a bar, the very make up of the early Parliaments reflects this.