He name-checked far-off battlegrounds where Kiwi blood was spilt in British wars: Gallipoli, Monte Cassino, Crete, North Africa. Interestingly, his piece, which was reprinted in the Herald, made no mention of the fact that Britain repaid this sacrifice by repudiating a long-standing trading relationship that was crucial to our economic well-being.
Nor was there any reference to New Zealand's multi-culturalism or acknowledgement of our Polynesian and Asian communities, perhaps because they remain "fiercely proud" of their ties to countries other than Britain.
Sir Paul concluded by asking, "Is it surprising that we voted to keep our flag with its reminder of British colonialism?" When you put it like that and speaking for myself: yes, very. But perhaps some who voted for the status quo didn't see it in those terms: after all, the anti-change brigade insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the rest of the world doesn't read anything into the Britishness of our flag.
Let's leave Sir Paul to his monochrome memories. What does the referendum result mean for those of us who actually live here?
Given that the issue supposedly only arose because John Key wanted to cement his place in history and the alternative design was supposedly uninspiring at best and embarrassing at worst, a 43.2 per cent vote for change is reasonably significant. To put it in perspective, that's only 1.5 per cent less than the combined Labour, Greens and NZ First share of votes cast at the last election.
The three opposition parties opposed change and are now patting themselves on the back for putting a dent in Key's grandiose aspirations. Well, politics is a tough business and he'd been riding high for quite a while, but the public is entitled to ask whether they " particularly Labour " now stand for anything beyond thwarting Key.
No doubt Labour will make an effort to reclaim the progressive mantle Key was trying on for size. But if we apply Theodore Roosevelt's famous judgment to this debate, it was the PM who spent himself in a worthy cause while Labour lined up with the "cold and timid" souls.
Labour's recalibration isn't off to a promising start, with leader Andrew Little declaring that everything should remain on hold until the Queen dies.
This is a remarkable stance for a would-be Prime Minister to adopt. It amounts to saying that we, the New Zealand people and our elected representatives, should not determine the timing of any decisions around our flag and constitutional arrangements. Instead the timing should be determined by the longevity of an individual on the other side of the world.
Writing in an English newspaper, an Englishwoman working in New Zealand derided the referendum as Key's "vanity project". Another way of looking at it is that Key did what we're always saying leaders should do: lead.
To say we can't do anything until the Queen is no longer with us is the essence of leading from behind.
Debate on this article is now closed.
