Why can’t this republican rabble take the referendum hint

King Charles III and Queen Camilla.

There are some causes that are ­futile beyond futility. An exciting Canberra. An impartial ABC. But none so motherless as holding a referendum for an Australian ­republic.

On the George Custer 10-point scale of predictable disaster, it scores 33. Which is why it is being pushed by a troika of all-time constitutional losers. Peter FitzSimons, long-reigning clown prince of Australian republicanism. Craig Foster, his deputy jester who succeeded Fitz as head of the Australian Republican movement.

Plus, some Pommy non-entity called Graham Smith, who leads something called “Republic”, which is now into its record two-thousand-year losing streak trying to abolish the monarchy in Britain.

Let’s be clear. Myself, I am a dedicated republican. I held high office on the Yes side in the 1999 republican referendum. I still feel the scars where the Australian people rejected us 55 to 45 per cent. Ignorant bastards. So could the three stooges of the Constitution please tell me: what exactly has happened since 1999 that would reverse that vote?

Nothing. Much to my misery, the republican position has deteriorated. The past two years around the death of the genuinely venerable Queen Elizabeth, and the succession of her son Charles, has only demonstrated the persistence of monarchy. It is like an iner­adicable weed.

When the Queen died, there were no Australian mobs calling for the execution of her successors. Instead, the whole of a usually phlegmatic nation went into quiet but intense mourning. ABC newsreaders wore black. Politicians practised looking grim. Even my republican heart skipped a beat as the Queen’s body was lowered to its rest. Well, almost.

But it’s the aftermath of Her Majesty’s demise that’s so disheartening. Suddenly, Charles Mountbatten-Windsor is routinely referred to as “The King”. The what? Surely, we have not so quickly adopted this term of ­majesty for someone we derided as a polo-playing git.

Then there’s Camilla. In the wake of her destruction of the marriage of the late Princess Diana, Camilla Parker Bowles was universally reviled. Now she is Queen Camilla. How the fallen are mighty. So much for the “Elizabeth effect”, where we were promised the throne would fall after the death of its last, admirable occupant. Personally, I am reduced to calculating when George XII will be crowned. At least I will be in republican heaven with Malcolm Turnbull. Then again.

But putting aside these inconvenient facts, let’s sample raw reality. Why would the Australian people, having delivered a decisive verdict in 1999, saddle up for ­another republican race 25 years later? Historically, they do not like any referendum, but one trying to reverse their expressed opinion would be as popular as acne.

Malcolm Turnbull

Hobby republicans will say we have changed, we now have more young people, more migrants. I was on the polling booths in 1999. Most of the shining youth who turned up were hugely annoyed by the inconvenience of having to vote, especially on something as esoteric as the republic. Huge chunks of what we thought would be reliable migrants turned out to come from dictatorial republics, and equated monarchy with freedom and reliable running water.

Then there is the appeal to whatever vestigial sanity might lurk in the well-coiffed heads of Harbor View Republicans. Did you not just see what happened to the voice referendum?

Naturally, I was on the losing side again, but I can at least count. That proposal lost by a catastrophic 60 to 40 per cent. It was predominantly backed by the same group of idealists, do-gooders and carpet baggers who would run a republican campaign. The only real contest would be the ­constitutional limbo dance. How low can we go?

Frankly, after the disasters of 1999 and 2023, any sane government would rather attempt an invasion of China than advance a progressive referendum. At least the losses would be lower.

But getting all technical about it, the voice referendum usefully reminded us of some of the iron laws of referendums that would apply equally to a republic.

First, any proposal must be bipartisan. It will not. There is no conceivable alternative world in which conservatives would support a republic, especially the radical sort of republic enthusiasts would demand. Which raises the question of models. Last year’s referendum decisively demonstrated that unless a referendum provides a clear model, it is as doomed as a three-bar skink at a miners’ convention.

Peter FitzSimons

The insoluble problem for republicans is they have not one, but two models, which in constitutional mathematics adds up to none at all. “Progressive” republicans want a directly elected president as head of state, to demonstrate their democratic and popular convictions, so rarely on display at cocktail parties and theatre openings.

Conservative republicans are terrified. They rightly foresee a crippled republic where two officials with a claim to popular endorsement – a prime minister and a president – vie for power. Constitutional crisis would be a biennial event. These more cautions souls favour a republic that clings as closely as possible to the existing monarchical structure – without the sovereign – and preserves all the existing delicate conventions and divisions of power.

The problem is that neither side will give, which means a partisan referendum and an infinitely arguable model. I think this reminds me of something.

Greg Craven is a constitutional lawyer and former vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University.