The Poms left us hanging out to dry in the 1970s. Yet, Kiwis cling to some desperate hope that the London crown holds New Zealand in some special esteem. Get over it people -- they have long since gone and left us to sort out their Treaty mess.

I'm bewildered that New Zealanders complain about unelected MPs in our parliament whilst supporting an unelected monarch to be our head of state.

Bill, you could have also noted the point that the Australians would be emulating the Americans and be seen as a multi-cultural nation, rather than a British colony.

They have free trade with ASEAN and ultimately will with China and East Asia and also possibly South Asia - but free trade with the EU is not likely.

The example of Britain, a little standoffish from the EU mainstream, is problematic - if Australia remains a British colony it will be outside Asia. Nations are looking to find places in regions and the Australia and New Zealand colonies need to modernise or live in the wrong time (place) and place (empire).

@Bruce By becoming a republic "Australia will then be considerably better placed as a nation connecting with Asia" I don't see how and anyway that sounds like a cultural cringe towards Asia. Any cringe is bad but at least Australia and the UK have considerable shared history and most of Aus institutions and society has a British inheritance.

Gav it won't necessarilly make NZ a better place to live, however when NZ participates in the next olympic games our flag will be waving something uniquely NZ. It's about being unique in this world and being us, rather than "oh NZ... Look it has a union jack, it must be some country connected to Britain." It will also mean our own head of state, a kiwi- not some monarch who visits our nation once every two decades and claims to be our head of state. Someone whom we can have an affinity with as kiwis, who is solely our President, and who is popularly elected by the NZ people. Rather than castrate us, it will unite us as a nation.

It’s interesting to note how other “colonies” have developed their nationality in relation to the Crown. And how this reflects the emerging debate about identity (and regions incorporating nations) in the 21st Century.

The Americans after their revolutionary war of independence from the imperial Crown are now a melting pot able to assimilate people from all around the world. But they now baldly claim that Europe is unable to do this, particularly Britain, and that this failure makes Europe and particularly Britain a terrorist threat to the USA.

Meanwhile in Europe there are calls to keep Europe “Christian identity” (by Catholics and Crown establishment Anglicans) to see off some threat caused by “secularisation” and Moslem migration – which of course is just the sort of attitude and language to further alienates Moslem migrants and grow the number of new recruits to terrorist cells. Who would have thought that the new century would see an attempt to form the same alliance between church and the anti-”immigrant” racist right that once existed in pre war Italy, Spain and Germany. But this sort of politics is inevitable whenever some “traditional establishment” claims supremacy in a state or region and feels threatened.

In counterpoint to the USA is Canada, its nationalism began in being the Crown loyalist part of the Americas. This has been self-perpetuating, as its consequence Quebec nationalism is a minority cause that compels the majority to continue to adhere to their tradition. While the cause for complete Canadian independence from a foreign Crown is entirely rational – a psychological need for a nationalist difference from the USA and possibly some apron string semblance of security against Quebec secession has prevailed for now. But what would happen if Australia became a republic? And that is just a matter of time, for there is a sense of community to Canada, Australia and New Zealand in having a foreign royal as head of state. And that sense of community will come to an end, when Australia becomes a republic. Australia will then be considerably better placed as a nation connecting with Asia and yet still in common cause with the melting pot that is the USA. This will enable it to grow its national identity as it builds its future in the region, whereas we could be left behind.

Britain is not assimilating its own migrants, and we could be destined, in not modernising our own identity by becoming fully sovereign, to also fail to modernise as a nation and thus fail to develop a full place in our own region – unless our “ambition” is to be the deputy sheriff of the Crown in the Pacific (the sort of role we had in German Samoa in WW1) – knights and dames and all. But given the failure of the PNAC agenda this is not an option that will remain credible for long.

This all leaves unstated our own sense of national self-identity (and takes into account the recent historic work on the Anglo-Saxon colonies) that will only grow as an older generation passes away and the Treaty adjustment to our national culture matures. Which is why we will easily be able to follow Australia's lead when they become a republic.

So it is inevitable we will become a republic, the only question is how we plan for this eventuality. I prefer we ask Australia to agree on a shared course, so that when Queen Elizabeth dies those in office as Governor General then become heads of state for the two countries. The leaves the question of determining on a course for selecting a new head of state and deciding on whether to bring in any constitutional change at that time. I personally see no need for any constitutional changes - simply transferring the legal place of the Crown to the office of President representing the Crown sovereignty of the people.

Before anyone says if they want a republic or not, they should understand the wider issues involved. Years ago, I used to think we should be able to run our own country, without it having anything to do with Britain. Now that I've looked at the pros and cons of becoming a republic, I would rather keep what we have.

We already run our own country without interference, despite our flag saying otherwise. The monarchy does us no harm, and it achieves a great deal of good in the world. For NZ, it's a bit like having a distant relative who thinks kindly of you and doesn't interfere with your life, who it's nice to see just once in a while. It would be silly to tell such a relative they are no longer wanted.

I see little to gain from a republic, and possibly a great deal to lose. Our relaxed stability is something we take for granted. If there is no actual benefit in becoming a republic (other than having a NZ head of state - and I'm not sure that is a benefit), then why change to something that could potentially make things worse?

If we want a stronger sense of identity and freedom from Britain, we could achieve that simply by removing the Union Jack from our flag. With that gone, there is less reason to even think of becoming a republic. While the Union Jack remains, it is a constant reminder of Britain (and like a red rag to a bull for anyone wanting a republic). Change the flag first, and then see if we feel the need to become a republic. For example, Canada changed their flag back in 1965 and they have not become a republic.

Have a look at my website www.coolnz.net. It offers a possible solution to retain the British link while giving us a flag that is clearly about this country.

But WHY should we become a republic? What would we GAIN from it? Independance? So we can be another historically castrated country? No thanks. Show me some real proof how it will make our country a better place to live, otherwise leave it a alone.