How, exactly? I don't recall the EU appointing technocratic governments there, i recall elections and the Greek and Italian people making a choice. Choice in specific circumstances that probably influenced them, but same as any election during a crisis.
Monti was supported by both democratically-elected Houses of Parliament, otherwise Napolitano would not have given him the task of creating a government.
In the UK you very much vote for a person, using the arcane first past the post system. People usually vote based on party allegiance, but at the circonscription level you cast a vote for the one winner, resulting in massive disenfranchisement.
We're talking about the PM here. You vote for a person who then votes on the PM, so it's an indirect system.
> using the arcane first past the post system.
FPTP sucks, but I've never heard it called arcane before. It's arguably the default normal way to vote for anything.
One could quip that we need someone to inaugurate new infrastructure works, provide soothing, apolitical speeches in time of need and serve as an unelected symbol of our country - the 'unelected' bit being important, as otherwise we'd just end up with some has-been politician put out to pasture, someone probably the majority of the population had never voted for and don't see as 'their' head of state.
Now, on principle, the monarchy is laughable, anachronistic and undemocratic - but donning my pragmatist glasses, I see it as probably the best way to ensure we have a (symbolic) head of state for performing just those duties where you need someone not overtly political. As long as the royals feel like doing the job, I say let them.
In the UK, the monarchy fits pretty well with the other European constitutional monarchies, and there are reasons to support it as you say. I still think hard questions need to be asked about the exact nature of the monarchy, but it's clearly an English/Scottish/Welsh institution that belongs here.
In Australia, it's a remnant of colonialism, a foreign invader that destroyed one of the oldest, if not the oldest, civilisations on the planet. If we're ever going to get over this, then we need to remove these remnants. Having a British constitutional monarchy in modern Australia is a ridiculous anachronism. The "advantages" could clearly be replicated without the historical baggage. We need to be a republic.
But (note, UK person here, add salt accordingly) it seems like you could retain that part while also stripping any actual power - i.e. 'power-wise practically a republic, emphasis on the -nominal- in my first sentence.'
Implementation details thereof I don't have a strong opinion on except perhaps "if I ever do develop such an opinion you should probably ignore it anyway."
I always vote "below the line" - it's more fun trying to rank all those micro-parties in order of how much I agree with them :)
It's still miles better than the UK's system
If Malayans wouldn't be so iddle Australia would be like Indonesia or rather Madagascar now and nobody would ever hear about any other natives there, like we don't hear about modern Ainu. Oldest doesn't mean better nor in any way more civilized. Australians could spend more time defending their guaranteed basic civil rights that become only theoretical in time of barbarian madness of sanitarism*. If they feel bad for aboriginal folk they can carve them big piece of Austrialia back and we will see how civilized they are at giverning themselves. But we all know Australia is equally imperial, predatory & hypocritical state as old Britain after what happened to Timor. So it won't ever happen.
Both countries are beneficiaries of EU munificence. I wonder whether that has anything to do with it?
The U.K. monarchy clearly lacks the wherewithal to influence Australian politics today that it possibly had back then and has nothing like the influence (through the Euro) of the ECB on the democratic Governments of Eurozone countries.
The lesson might actually be (ironically if so) that the monarchy would be more resilient to republican opinion if it wielded more power. It is the perceived pointlessness of it that will lead to its decline, not any strength.