Letter: Why Australians voted `no'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.KATHY MARKS is wrong to claim that "it will take a brave political leader to tackle this profoundly divisive issue [of an Australian republic] once again" ("Australia keeps Her Majesty", 7 November). The "no" camp included many supporters of an Australian republic. The principle of republicanism is thus hardly a divisive one. What exercised most minds was how a future president should be selected. Had the referendum not been muddied by those determined to include what was known to be an unpopular option (viz a president selected by parliament rather than by the people), the "yes" vote would have won convincingly. Even with such doubts surrounding the proposed constitutional model, almost half the voters indicated their approval for a republic. In the future the only brave political leader who courts danger when dealing with Australia's evolution to a republic will be one who tries to stymie it.
JOHN OSMAN
Leeds
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments