Possible responses to negative automatic rejections

In this post I wrote late last year, I described how it's common for people to hear about a republic and immediately offer one or more of what I call automatic rejections.  I define these as reasons people give quickly, almost unthinkingly, as to why we don't need to change our political structure (positive rejections) or why becoming a republic would adversely affect us (negative rejections).  

I argued that the best way to deal with automatic rejections (be they positive or negative) was to politely and calmly argue why a particular rejection raised isn't appropriate.  In a recent post, I wrote about simple responses to three common positive rejections.  In this post, I suggest simple responses to three negative ones.

I should once more state that I do not write this post to set out any sort of guideline to be used for arguments about republicanism.  I do so merely to suggest easy responses by setting out some thinking in order to allow interested readers to reply and let me know if any of them can be improved upon.  I cannot claim to have any special insights and would love to hear of what people make of my discussion.

Cheers,

Mike

Becoming a republic certainly does not mean we'd have to leave the Commonwealth.  As has been described here, the majority of members (30 of 51) are already republics.  Moreover, the Commonwealth Heads of Government agreed in 2007 that a member changing its constitutional structure doesn't have to reapply for membership (an event described in this blog post).

Were we to become a republic, we wouldn't have to do a blessed thing with the Treaty of Waitangi: it’s a long-established principle that successive governments take on responsibility for previous agreements.  

People making comments about the Treaty might well be trying to focus not on the document itself, but on the relationship between Maori and Pakeha, if we become a republic.  By allowing someone of Maori descent to become our Head of State, a republic would better recognise that we are one people who are in this country together.  I argue that becoming a republic would improve that relationship, not weaken it.

As I said in my post in December, this is my favourite automatic response.  The way New Zealand presently is, I don't think anyone can seriously propose the NZ Government adopts a federal structure like the US has.  Indeed, the Movement favours a parliamentary republic, which means we'd have a Head of State (who may or may not be called a President) acting in addition to our Parliament.  In a parliamentary republic, our Head of State wouldn't be able to write legislation or take the country to war (those roles being held by our Parliament).  The US is a big country that has recently done some unpopular things, but saying republicanism would make NZ more like it is just ridiculous.

The reason I like this automatic rejection is that people giving it are unwittingly showing their weakness in a debate about republicanism.  I reckon the rejection shows someone either a) dislikes the United States or b) has for some reason a big aversion to constitutional change.  Amongst New Zealanders, I reckon people who dislike the US generally also dislike the elitism inherent in a monarchy - if we talk about republicanism in connection with the UK monarchy, I believe these people are likely to understand and appreciate where the Movement is coming from.

I argue people with an aversion to constitutional change are also easy targets in a debate about republicanism.  I am, however, still thinking through and testing different ways of doing it.  This is another issue I'll post about, shortly.