The monarchy is the real winner of the Voice referendum.

The monarchy is safe from the challenge of a referendum for a long time, but that's not the only reason it will endure

In the aftermath of Australia’s historic Voice referendum, there has been debate over the long-term consequences for the future direction of Australia at an auspicious if not highly uncertain time globally. What is certain, however, is that the real winner of the referendum is the monarchy.

Not only have voters’ appetite for constitutional debates been worn down by the Voice referendum campaign, but the result makes it highly unlikely that any referendum on constitutional issues will be called for at least a generation. The monarchy in Australia is likely safe, as it will be elsewhere in the Commonwealth, in the very long term.

It’s not as if the republican movement has been helping its own cause. The Australian Republic Movement (ARM) has long been stagnant, but the ascent of the obnoxious and self-important Craig Foster to its chairmanship last year saw the republican cause fused with fashionable Woke causes such as anti-Britishness and indigenism. This has proven political poison for the ARM.

Republicanism in Australia has followed a similar trajectory to the sovereignty movement in Quebec. Both were very much Boomer generational projects which reached the apogee of their support in the 90s. The 1995 Quebec independence referendum (in which the No vote won a bare majority) and the 1999 Australian constitutional referendum (in which the No vote carried all six states) were the “big moments” which ultimately failed for their proponents. Both movements failed to renew themselves and have been desperately searching for a new mission.

In both Canada and Australia, such constitutional issues have been rendered less relevant to people’s day-to-day business, even more so now as both countries are feeling considerable economic stress. The intervening years have been much kinder to the monarchy than the 1990s were. Skilful PR by three generations of the Royal Family, with some exceptions, have also helped. So too, did the marriage of the Danish Crown Prince Frederik to Mary in 2004 which attracted considerable attention in Australia.

We must also take into account the much bigger picture of our country’s place in the world. The 80s and 90s saw Australia considerably anxious about its place in the world amidst cultural change, migration and multiculturalism. It was fashionable to talk about a multicultural, Asia-focused future under Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. However, under Howard, the focus shifted on Australia being part of the Western geopolitical and cultural sphere, reinforced after 9/11. Times of uncertainty have a habit of reinforcing support for traditional institutions. Ukraine and Hamas have reanimated the post-9/11 debate on civilisational values. This is a good omen not only for the British monarchy, but all of Europe’s constitutional monarchies which appear more secure than ever before.

The last few years has seen the West, and more specifically the English-speaking world, subject to abusive and unpleasant campaigns by the decolonial/DEI/CRT movement. The said movement’s support for Hamas has generated an unprecedented backlash and more people willing to speak out against this poisonous ideology. There is still some way to go, but the defence of Western Civilisation which requires preserving its traditional institutions has received a major strategic boost.