The report recycles fashionable demands on the Centre-Left for years	Seld-declared radicals can be surprisingly conformist. Demos, the think tank blamed with inventing Cool Britannia, today published Modernising the monarchy which, according to one of its authors, breaks out of the sterile old royalist/republican debate. In fact, the report largely recycles demands which have been fashionable on the Centre-Left for years: the Monarchy should be "slimmed down", decoupled from the English and Scottish churches, paid less, and so on. Years ago, bien pensant liberals called this the "Scandinavian model" - which was always rather unfair to the King of Norway, who assiduously attends meetings of his own Cabinet. In reality, the scheme amounts to little more than an acknowledgment by republicans that they must work within the constraints of public opinion. The Demos paper admits that "there is one overwhelmingly powerful argument against abolition"; the vast majority of the public want to keep the Monarchy. Yet its proposals, wittingly or otherwise, would have the effect of eroding that majority. When asked why they support the Monarchy, most people say something to the effect that it represents the nation. The reason it does so is that it is the fount of legitimate authority, above party or faction. Servants of the state, military or civilian, act in the Crown's name: in other words, they act for Britain's government, not for Blair's government. The idea of removing the Queen's residual constitutional role is presented by Demos as a tidying-up measure that would free the Royal Family to spend more time on "active symbolism". In fact, it would gravely weaken the balance of our polity. Without the Monarch, politicians would operate within rules set by themselves and interpreted by their own nominees. The threat of proportional representation, and its accompanying kaleidoscope of coalitions, makes the need for a neutral referee greater than ever. Could a former politician nominated by his own colleagues ever take the Queen's place?
	What is a king chosen by his own people if not a president?	Most subversive of all is the proposal to subject each new Monarch to a popular referendum. The objection to this proposal is not so much its breathtaking discourtesy as that it would remove the justification of having a Monarchy at all. What is a king chosen by his own people if not a president? Once we accept the principle of an elected head of state, we become a republic. The Demos authors know this only too well. Taken collectively, their suggestions remove the Crown's most important functions and undermine public support for the institution. Despite their insistence that they want a more popular Monarchy, they must realise that, if impoverished and emasculated, it would command little public support. Were the Monarchy ever to become wholly decorative, the argument for its retention would be weakened. This newspaper has always accepted that there is a case for a republic. We disagree with it, but many of its exponents are respectable and serious. What is discreditable is to advance a republican agenda while protesting loyalty to the Crown.