The only objections that I have heard are reactionary, like the one that it would be terrible if the head of state was a politician, or someone who was popular.
Is there anything in the alternative proposal that is worse than entrusting Australia's head of state to the chance meandering of the Windsor's gene-pool?
Allowing that the referendum does not contain the third option - a soviet socialist republic of Australia - isn't bourgeois republicanism preferable to constitutional monarchy?
When quizzed by British leftists why his party was called the Irish Socialist Republican Party, James Connolly turned the question around: should it be called monarchist?
Here in Britain, Labour's "alternative" to the House of Lords are depressing (a big quango of appointees). But I would still favour the abolition of the House of Lords. -- Jim heartfield