Sir, – Your editorial ("Long to reign over Oz?", January 27th) seems to look forward positively to the possibility of Australia becoming a "self-governing republic", an intriguing expression. Queen Elizabeth is Australia's head of state under its own constitutional law; in 1999 this was confirmed in a national referendum and there seems no hurry to have another one soon, there being no external pressure. There thus seems no doubt Australia is self-governing. Is Ireland a "self-governing republic" with no external pressures, not to say orders, especially regarding referendums? Does the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and so on, think so? Should anyone here patronise those antipodean former colonists? Not me! – Yours, etc,
RICHARD FROGGATT,
Belfast.
Sir, – While it is true that Australians do indeed remember the “dismissal crisis”, the public ratified that decision when Malcolm Fraser won the largest majority in Australian history in the election that immediately followed his appointment.
Indeed, the failure of both Gough Whitlam in 1975 and the referendum in 1999 shows that for all the supposed lack of legitimacy of the monarchy, it has twice been renewed by different generations.
Since the last referendum on the monarchy in Australia rejected a model of parliamentary appointed presidents, The Irish Times then is faced with its own democratic dilemma – does it ignore the will of the Australian people by making them vote on the same proposal they rejected in 1999, or does it propose a presidential republic, as in the United States or France?
I am glad that The Irish Times admits that republicanism is less popular with young Australians, but I do protest at how misleading the editorial is in terms of the growing support for the monarchy among "the plain people of Australia", even if not the bien pensant chattering classes. – Yours, etc,
THOMAS MURPHY,
Santry,
Dublin 9.