I think that you over estimate the intelligence of the House of Commons
The trouble is that people don’t tend to see the long term consequences.
I think if the average Brit woke up to find himself living in a republic with a president like Ireland, he’d suffer an acute case of tea shock. 
FRDE: I suppose that’s what calm kiwi was on about, but I find this post from Ice Wolf more convincing:
France has both a PM and a President, so the basic system (called semi-presidential) is sound, but I don’t see any reason why the Commonwealth countries would have to create the post of President.
In 1999, or thereabouts, Australia held a referendum on becoming a republic. It was defeated, and we remain a constitutional monarchy. The reason it was defeated is related to what Derleth is talking about. There is no reason to think an Australian or NZ (or Canadian etc) republic would be based on an American model, or a French one etc, and there is no reason to think it wouldn’t be. In other words, there are different models out there, and this is what split the pro vote, with many people (myself included*) voting to retain the monarchy.
Some people were in favour of a popularly-elected president, and others were in favour of little more than a change of title for the G-G, with that position being decided by a two-thirds majority of both houses of parliament (the so-called “minimalist republican” model). Personally, the former option scares me, and I like the indirect nature of the second, which gives the President much less of a political mandate.
The monarchists were united and the republicans were split. When the constitutional convention offered the direct election model as the alternative to the monarchy, it was defeated.
*Though in the intervening years I have probably changed my position enough that I would vote to retain the monarchy regardless.
That’s the problem with talking about wanting a “republic” - it’s become a catch-all term for anything that isn’t a monarchy. A term which encompasses anything from Switzerland to North Korea. We need some more precise terminology, really.
We have a more precise terminology. What we don’t have is a single more precise terminology: Anyone who seriously discusses government comes up against this same issue and is forced to define basic terms from scratch to have a useful vocabulary. Thus far, no single redefinition has caught on.
Mandate is one thing, but power is quite another. To take an extreme example, Kim Jong Il has no recognizable mandate but ultimate power over his fiefdom. I’m uncomfortable with indirect methods because, despite all of the traditions and ideals, eventually the politicians will hit on someone who will abuse all of the power he has been granted, even theoretical powers nobody intended anyone in that post would ever actually use. In my own country, the Supreme Court is the highest body staffed by appointees, and there are times when I’m unsure about the wisdom of that. (I am sure that it should be easier to remove the obviously unfit, as some quite senile old duffers have held on to their posts well after they ought to have been sent to babble memoirs to nurses at Shady Acres or Bellevue.)
It’s interesting that the thought goes to something replacing the monarchy in a system of government if the monarchy isn’t there. Almost as if we really can’t trust government-by-committee – there just has to be someone in charge.
Which is odd for NZ, because government-by-committee is precisely how we’ve been governed since the early part of last century. For 100 years exactly this year, actually. Even the bicameral system bit the dust here more than 50 years ago. Comes with being on the edge of things, I suppose.
I’m still in the “really don’t care if we have a monarchy or not” camp.
Well, almost all countries have a head of state (Switzerland might be an exception). What system do you think New Zealand should have, if it didn’t have a monarch?
What would the United Kingdom be called if it became a republic?
And if it did, would that necessarily force other Commonwealth to become republics?
“Republic of Great Britain”?
Are there any other choices than “monarchy” and “republic”?
Perhaps the United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
No. Some Commonweakth countries are already republics (e.g., India, South Africa); and some Commonwealth countries are monarchies but with a different person as sovereign (e.g., Malaysia, Tonga).
A decision would need to be made about position of Head of the Commonwealth (which is prersently held by HM the Queen), and Commonweakth members which have HM the Queen as sovereign or head of state would need to make their own constitutional decisions about which way to go. As Australia discovered about 8 years ago, thewre are several possible ways to become a republic, and making a decision about which way is likely to be controversial.
And Northern Ireland. Great Britain is not the same as the UK.
Not as these terms are currently used. As I said upthread:
I have to say again (as a NZer) I believe the Monarchy serves us rather then we serve the monarchy. We have a (especially since MMP) democratic government. The Queen/Monarchy is entirely about pomp and ceremony. She/He/It does not affect us. Many NZers enjoy the whole Royal thing but if we were not part of the Monarchy we would have a doofusy ex-politician in an equally ineffectual role. Our leader is the PM.
What benefit was gained from having a president in France or Ireland?
In France De Gaulle pushed through the Fifth Republic, which gave the President real power - prior to that the government was ineffectual as it was a changing coalition.
Fortunately my memories of the details have been eroded.
Ireland seems to have handled things, but (IMO) there are real problems involving an elected head of state, a conflict of legitimacy, and a selected head of state is not particularly ‘democratic’.
It does look as if the turkeys have voted for Christmas in the UK, although the word is supposed to be that a 100% elected upper house is a ‘spoiler’, the Lords might let it through without contest, and an ‘upper house’ elected by proportional representation would eat the House of Commons for breakfast.
Actually, it was a non-binding vote, just to test the waters, so to speak. It’s not a Bill, so there’s no question of it going to the Lords or passing into law. (That’s not to say that a Bill won’t be put before the House later; but the turkeys haven’t really voted for Christmas yet.)
Has no one else recognized your dreadful pun? (I did, soon after you posted it.)
Oh, I recognised it - I was just too busy groaning to post 
:smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack:
Well, there’s democracy, but then you can’t declare war and have to accept peace whenever it’s offered - on the other hand you get the trade bonus, no corruption, can’t be bribed and can pump the luxury rate up to boost city growth. Or there’s fundamentalism, where no-one’s ever unhappy (and they even pay you tithes), the reputation loss for terrorist acts is reduced, your unit support costs almost vanish and you can be as much of a boor as you like in international relations, but don’t expect much of a scientific Golden Age.
Here’s a previous thread on this issue: When did Canada Stop Being Part of the English Monarchy?
UDS and I had a nice long discussion about the issue, UDS posting from the Australian perspective and me from the Canadian perspective.
My basic point was that since the British Parliament no longer has the power to legislate for any of the independent Commonwealth realms, the abolition of the monarchy in the UK would not affect the other realms.
UDS was of the view that the wording of the Australian Constitution presupposes the existence of a British monarch, and if Britain abolished the monarchy, that would also abolish it for Australia, and possibly also the other Commonwealth realms.
We agreed to disagree, since we could not resolve the issue to either one’s satisfaction, which in itself is an example of the modern Commonwealth in action. 