That's an interesting point which hadn't really sunk in with me, despite all the rituals.

Australia just needs to find out whether it feels it benefits or not from having the queen.

I imagine you would be out of the Commonwealth if you got rid of her.

They don't have to be, many countries in the Commonwealth don't have her as their head of state.

__________________
... I am surprised at your insolence in writing to me at all. You know, as I know, that I bought this constituency... may God's curse light upon you and may it make your women as open and as free to the excise officers as your wives and daughters have always been to me while I have represented your scoundrel corporation.
I have the honour to be... your obliged humble servant, Anthony Henley
- MPs reply to constituent, mid 1700s

The power to call an election is EXTREMELY minor compared to a real monarch's power. I mean, a coalition of opposition parties can easily do such things. . .

Whether Australia has a Queen as head of state is not a major concern to me. I have lived here 50 years and the only political affect of the Constitutional Monarchy has been that the Queen backed the Governor General’s interpretation of the Constitution when she sacked Gough Whitlam. This had the affect of forcing an early election in which Gough was overwhelmingly defeated.

Greater concern to me is that people wanting a Republic ask “Do we keep the Constitutional Monarchy or do we get a Republic?”.
This is a clever ruse by the Republicans because they lump all republic types against the Constitutional Monarchy system.
A sample of Republics include – Soviet Union ; Iraq ; United States of America ; Italian Social Republic ; India ; People’s Republic of China ; North Korea ; and Ethiopia (there are many others).

If asked to chose between the current Australian system and the examples of political systems above I am fairly sure that there would be far fewer people jumping on the Republican band wagon and more asking for further details as to exactly what type of Republic will replace our system.

WFT??? r u stupid? what the hell is wrong with u?

I'm not supposed to make personal attacks hear but that is just about the most offencive thing i have ever heard about anyone. may i point out you my friend being from the US are decended form racists, bigots, religous zelots, and slave drivers. not to mention u assholes decimated the indians.

Most of the people first sent to australia as prisoners were extreamly poor and convicted unfairly. the most common crime was stealing food or money to buy food. even more of australias population is decended from people the came during the gold rush.

__________________
Ignorance is mans greatest flaw

*laughs* they are being sarky mate, its a joke.

As for queen/Australia, I'm sure it doesn't make much difference one way or the other.

__________________
Sarcasm is the lowest form of humour but humour, apparently, is the highest form of wit.

You think?

It would seem that Britons are worried about their own sovereignty, though the powers-that-be seem to be less so. Their involvement with the EU does not only threaten the existence of their own currency, but their ability to decide most -if not eventually all -matters for themselves. I'm not certain how EU architects view British royalty, but their influence would probably be allowed only if beneficial to the EU. This is the first time I have considered the effects of these things on Australia, but will the EU assume the influence of Britain on Australia (and others), will Australia find themselves independent regardless of their own will -or will they reject EU influence? The very existence of Britain as we know it is in question, as their armed forces (and so also, it might be logical to assume, intelligence agencies and direction thereof) -are combined with EU forces in the same manner as politcal and economic control.

some info on the subject..

UK to Hand Sovereignty to EU without Referendum

National Sovereignty in the European Union

EU Army