There needs to be a head of state. The Regent would be no different that the Presidents of Ireland, Germany, or Italy.
My plan would call for only a modest budget and small honorarium.
Avoids having to change the structure of the government, a divisive debate on republicanism (that unlike Australia, almost no one on the right over there supports, so it would never be on the table unless the government was hard-left), and millions in administrative costs in changing the name of the country.
Franco technically restored the Spanish Monarchy and made himself regent for life.
Crowmell was King (and was even followed by his son! Though he refused the crown ala Caesar) but in name so I’d dispute they were ever “really” a republic.
Re Grania’s point, I don’t see why, given the nature of the position, there would be a problem getting someone approved. Canada and OZ don’t see to have any trouble picking Governors-General. If need be ditch my supermaj requirement.
The alternative would be what, have the PM directly elected by the Commons and having them be Head of State ala the President of South Africa?
I don't see why you're so hung up on replacing one useless ceremonial regal-sounding post with another useless ceremonial regal-sounding post. The vast majority of nations around the world, and indeed, in Europe itself, transitioned to becoming full Republics WITHOUT the need of a middle man like that. For example, look at the UK neighbor's Iceland. It was very much like the UK before World War II. Useless ceremonial monarch as head of state and head of the Church of Iceland, prime minister holding the actual governing power, and parliament. Iceland just voted to abolish their monarch outright and become a Republic. POOF! Gone. No need to hire a "Regent" in his place and give him/her a taxpayer funded salary to cut ribbons and grant "royal honours"
>> Avoids having to change the structure of the government, a divisive debate on republicanism (that unlike Australia, almost no one on the right over there supports, so it would never be on the table unless the government was hard-left), and millions in administrative costs in changing the name of the country. <<
Let's address these three-fold:
1) Changing the structure of the government is the whole point of abolishing the monarchy, and it isn't difficult given the Queen has virtually no "official" powers in the first place. If you don't, then the "Regent" would just inherit the same flawed system of entitlement. Is the "Regent" ALSO going to be the lead religious power in the country, head of the Church of England, "defender of the faith" in Great Britain, and are Catholics still going to be barred from being head of state? Is the Regent still going to be able to grant "Royal Honours" so they can Knight people like Kevin Spacey? (he currently carries the title of "KBE" thanks to the Queen) Will the House of Lords continue to exist with a bunch of unelected "Lords Spiritual" making decisions over the government by virtue of the fact they're bishops in the Church of England? These are all reasons I'd want to abolish the nobility system of the UK in the first place.
2) They'd have to change the name of the country anyway if they didn't have a king, since they'd no longer be a KINGdom. They'd be one of those quasi-monarchies like United Arab Emirates or Japan where's no "King" or "Crown", per say, but the country is still a monarchy with an appointed ceremonial leader. They'd most likely be renamed Principality or Commonwealth of Great Britain, with the royal "Regent" as nominal head of state.
3) By nature, conservatives are "don't rock the boat" types who prefer preserving countries traditions and history, so its not surprising very few conservatives in the UK favor abolishing the monarchy. On the other hand, NONE of the "major" parties in the UK endorse abolishing it either, there is little motivation to do so since the Queen has no power. Hypothetically if there was a campaign to abolish the monarchy you'd probably get a small handful of Conservative MPs to endorse it, as they did with Brexit when most of Labour was vehemently against it but a handful of rogue "LabourLeave" MPs attached their names so the supporters could claim it was a "bipartisan" effort.
>> The alternative would be what, have the PM directly elected by the Commons and having them be Head of State ala the President of South Africa? <<
I think that would be fine and doable. As I noted, Kingdoms are very rare these days and the vast majority of FORMER monarchies turned Republics have gone that route (or created a useless ceremonial "President" to serve with the Prime Minister", which sounds better than "Regent"):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_date_of_transition_to_republican_system_of_government
BTW, I haven't seen the "WE'RE A REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!" crowd weigh in on this thread, or start touting their imaginary definition of a Republic as "a nation where the rule of law is supreme and an individual's rights are guaranteed to be protected by the government". Guess they don't want to reminded of the REAL definition of the word being a nation with a monarch as head of state. ;-)
The Cromwellian Commonwealth did have two written constitutions! To me that definitely makes them a Republic, perhaps flawed in its day-to-day operation but still operating.
Both constitutions exceptional liberal (in the classical sense!) for their time.