OK, I'm not the republican that many in this room are. But there's an interesting side to the call to scrap the monarchy that I haven't seen discussed much: if we replace them with a President, how should they be appointed and what powers should they hold? Some have said that that's a side issue: the point is to replace a colonial overlord (as I think I said elsewhere, the republican movement is far less strong in England than it is elsewhere) and once that's been done, the details can be sorted out in due course. That was the approach that Bob Hawke took in the Australian referendum in the 1990s - and arguably lost it as a result. One Australian friend said he was a republican but voted No because he didn't trust Hawke that the "sorting it out later" would be anything other than on his terms. The Jamaicans are trying to thrash this out in advance, but again distrust between the government and the opposition are holding up a constitutional convention.
The US, inspired by France, went for making the President the executive branch; 130 years later, China went for a similar approach while 10 years after that, Ireland went for a much more titular President and a strong Prime Minister (Taoiseach).
Interestingly, when I asked a Bajan what model Barbados adopted when it sacked the monarch, she said she didn't know! But she then explained that it didn't matter because everyone knew who was going to run the country, regardless of what title they were given. I suppose that's one approach!