I get where you’re coming from (so ridiculous…) but I would put too much stock into the various kinds of republics. They’re just labeling ostensible governmenta

I get where you’re coming from (so ridiculous…) but I would put too much stock into the various kinds of republics. They’re just labeling ostensible governmental systems, not trying to characterize relative levels of freedom. And y’all kiwis deserve derision until you manage to kick the old buffoons to the curb! At the very least you can do what India did and stay in the Commonwealth for economic/geopolitical signaling reasons, but declare sovereignty from the crown itself. EDIT: and tbh you still got em lurking. AFAICT the monarch has the power to dissolve parliament at any time and start new elections, and could exercise the power of veto? The Constitution Act 1986 is the principal formal statement. The Act first recognises that the Queen - the Sovereign in right of New Zealand - is the Head of State of New Zealand and that the Governor-General appointed by her is her representative in New Zealand. Each can in general exercise all the powers of the other… The Governor-General has the power to summon, prorogue and dissolve parliament… a Bill passed by the House becomes law when the Sovereign or Governor-General assents to it. There’s always the chance that trying this in practice would lead to an uprising, but as the US has recently taught us, polite conventions are a weak foundation for a democracy… imagine what a conspiracy theorist monarch could do if they worked with domestic fringe politicians! https://web.archive.org/web/19991009163331/http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/cabinet/manual/intro.html https://web.archive.org/web/19991009163331/http://www.dpmc.g...