Monitor: All The News of the World

Reaction in the Sunday newspapers to the result of the Australian referendum on keeping the Queen as head of state

The Mail on Sunday

What Tony Blair would doubtless dub "the forces of conservatism"have won a famous victory down under, with the decisive rejection of the move to drop the Queen. Often, as in this case, it is only when reformers try to construct a new way of doing things that the virtues of the existing, and supposedly flawed, system become clear, and nothing has more dramatically illustrated this than Mr Blair's constitutional reforms - above all the abolition of our House of Lords. The result of the Australian referendum surely carries a message for those in our Government blindly and arrogantly determined to "modernise" Britain and reorder our relations with the rest of the world. The wish to modernise is no crime. But as they feel the itch to tamper with our institutions, ministers might like to reflect that a monarchy [that was] here before this millennium began will be here long after New Labour has had its day in the political sun.

Sunday Mirror

The Queen must be pleased she has won her first-ever election and retained her sovereignty in Australia. However, it is widely circulated that they couldn't give a XXXX for the monarchy but it was a vote against the politicians who did not put up a proper alternative. The people of Australia wanted to vote for a president for themselves and did not trust politicians to make the decision. Our Government should note this when they decide the make-up of the second chamber in Parliament. When the Royal Commission reports, it is likely that it will recommend a proportion of the second chamber should be elected. The Government should make that a hefty proportion. Otherwise the people might regard the second chamber with as much distrust as they do the toffs it has taken us 600 years to get rid of.

The Sunday Times

It is hardly a time for Buckingham Palace to put out the bunting. The plebiscite revealed a clear majority in favour of ditching the monarchy, though not on the basis proposed in this referendum. Australia will vote on the issue again and it will do so until the country becomes a republic. The palace should offer an alternative to prevent further embarrassment to the Queen and shore up the role of the Commonwealth. The Queen, it should propose, will continue as head of state in those countries who wish it until the end of the reign, unless they want her removed more quickly. Her successor, Charles, would then relinquish the role of head of state, but remain head of the Commonwealth. Yesterday's statement from the Queen appeared to acknowledge the need for reform. It would be in her interests to regard the referendum in Australia as an opportunity for positive reform rather than an excuse for inertia.

The Independent on Sunday

Oz should have entered the 21st century with a spring in its step and an independent air; achieving a coming of age in time for the new age, a time to redefine itself for the next period of history. As it turned out, the first foray of the republican movement has been a long day's journey into nothingness. Yesterday, when I phoned one of my closest friends to lament the likely result, he shocked me by revealing his voting intentions. This was a brilliant satirist who had made his name mocking the royals 30 years before it became fashionable. I asked why he was rejecting the republic, and his answer seemed to speak for the heartlands, as well as for many wrinkled radicals: "Too many crooks are keen on it," he said.

(Richard Neville)