Canadians may be divided on whether to cast off the royal moorings, but they have a clear idea of the method to use to decide the issue: a national referendum. Last September, 58 per cent of respondents told IPSOS they wanted Justin Trudeau to organize such a consultation. Obviously, the wish is stronger in Quebec (73 per cent), but one finds a majority everywhere except in the Prairies (where the figure is between 45 and 49 per cent.)

It's wrong in principle and it doesn't work in practice. (And no, it's not good for tourism.) It doesn't have to be this way. Unlike Smith, I don’t predict or want the demise of the Crown in the foreseeable future. I do, however, think our political landscape is richer for protest movements like his – police, take note – and that our constitutional monarchy is potentially stronger when it’s tuned into its most vociferous opponents.Everyone would understand that unless otherwise decided, this configuration would endure. The amendment must also provide that if adopted by the 10 provinces and Parliament, a constitutional conference will be held within three years with only one item on the agenda: the formula for replacing the Governor General as head of state. Thus, the text of the amendment will prohibit any other subject from being discussed at this conference. This question alone exposes us to getting negative answers from one or two provinces. It is obviously politically impossible to use the Canadian average to impose the decision because that would give fiercely anti-monarchist Quebec far too strong a voice, which would irrevocably pollute the whole referendum debate. The arrests were an affront to the very idea of British liberty. Graham Smith, the head of Republic, has denied that he and his fellow protesters had any equipment which would have allowed them to attach themselves to anything. But even if they did, they would have simply been victims of legal rather than illegal illiberalism. During the coronation of King Charles III, the Metropolitan Police arrested 64 people, most of whom they claimed were there to disrupt the inauguration of our new head of state. Six of these were members of the group Republic, which seeks to abolish the monarchy. They were detained for 16 hours.

If there is one criticism I would make of Abolish the Monarchy, it is that it is at times too tame, too moderate. This is part of Republic’s strategy to widen its appeal, but it does a disservice to the genuine radicalism at the heart of the republican position. This is why Abolish the Monarchy does not quite fit into the great British pamphleteering tradition epitomised by Thomas Paine.History is for ever being made but is never lost. When we do take that step and become a republic, we will be making history all over again. It will be a moment witnessed by the world and never forgotten by this country. A republic is a legacy that we leave to future generations, something entirely achievable, profoundly democratic and that will make Britain a fairer and better place for all of us”. monarchy is by its very nature anti-democratic and not suited to a country which prides itself as a world leader in political rights and freedoms the year of the coronation. Republic's protests have made a big impact on the debate about the future of the monarchy, and we're seeing support for the royals drop sharply. Second, in keeping with the idea of giving this amendment the greatest possible legitimacy through the popular vote, a national referendum should be held before the votes on the amendment take place in provincial legislatures and Parliament. If the public indicates it wants action, elected officials would, of course, be politically bound to accept their voters’ verdict.