It's the Queen down under, and the republic debate... again

Invite any royal to come to Australia and the same thing happens, over and over.

I guess you could say that it runs in the family (bad joke, I know).

When Prince William visited a few years back he was thrown lamingtons (at him, and not 

to him) while republican protesters shouted their chants using the group as a human microphone.

This time, the inevitable debate has again been implied.

You’d like to think that Australia could just let this one go for the time being, but no.

To be honest with you all, what is the difference of becoming a republic when we have been politically independent from 1986 and during the late 70’s early 80’s the High Court became our final court of appeal.

The combination of these two things meant that Australia is practically republic, just it isn’t official yet.

So in this way I guess you could look at it like Australia is married to the idea of a republic, but it doesn’t have the piece of paper, or the inevitable fanfare.

But I ponder, how will this better Australia? I don’t think it would hinder it either but what benefits are there?

Our flag is independent of Britain’s and aptly acknowledges our motherland.

If we did become an official republic I’d like to think we’d do that too.

What difference will becoming truly independent mean? Sure, we might not have A 

Governor or Governor General and the coins would more than likely hav e to be changed.

But perhaps this is the extent to which it goes.

I’m not saying Australia should not officiate its virtual republicanism however, is truly necessary when we already essentially are a republic?