They do. But as a dual British-Australian citizen I can tell you there is no interest in Australia in becoming part of a CANZUK union. Australia will be happy to retain current ties and deepen them, including on trade and immigration, but Australians will not give up their constitutional, federal form of government and give up power in a union where they can be outvoted by the representatives of the other countries. There is simply no interest in that
Any form of political union would need to be federal itself due to the reasons you've just stated, there's no need to single out Australians not wanting to give up their government as I'm sure the feeling is mutual (just look at the reasons Brits voted to leave the EU for instance). Also note that this was the last thing on my list, the principle objectives were to secure closer economic ties and free(er) movement. I am merely suggested a loose political union as a possible extension of this as an EU alternative, as its a very relevant issue in British politics right now.That makes no sense at all. The single SSBN the UK has patrolling at any one time is patrolling the Atlantic, Trident missiles in the Vangard subs don't have the range to hit targets in the south-east or east Asian region. On the other hand, the US' two Ohio-class SSBNs on patrol in the Pacific do. The NATO/Northwoods nuclear targeting staff and software are based on European, not Asian, scenarios. Only the United States has the expertise and the assets to conduct full-spectrum, including nuclear, operations in the Asian region. The idea that the UK has anything to contribute in the way of a nuclear umbrella to Australia that it doesn't already get from America is preposterous and suggests a deep lack of knowledge about Australasian and Asia-Pacific defence issues.
This relates more to if a political union was pursued, in the sense that CANZUK would actually have a nuclear deterrent of its own as opposed to constantly relying on America. Obviously there are huge technicalities that would need to be overcome, as you have rightly identified, but I'd be willing to hedge my bets that the UK is a more reliable ally (and less self-interested) than the US and the political union would compound this further. Obviously the US has the most adept military in the present, but a combined CANZUK military (which I'll get onto in a second) would enable us to reduce our reliance on the US (although it seems unlikely, if Trump became president he seems to be less inclined to maintain military spending in foreign territory, this could potentially be significant although there's zero chance of a CANZUK union forming in that timescale, if at all).And what on earth are you talking about re "our militaries would find communication far easier"? Don't you realise that these five countries co-operate on all these issues already? Haven't you heard of Five Eyes, of ABCA, AUSCANNZUKUS naval integration, Air and Space Interoperability Council, the Technical Cooperation Program (defence science and research), the Combined Communications Electronics Board (Anglosphere ELINT/EMCON research and co-operation) and the rest? Don't you realise we already do all of this without a union?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyeshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABCA_Armieshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUSCANNZUKUShttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_and_Space_Interoperability_Councilhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Technical_Cooperation_Programhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Communications_Electronics_BoardThis was in direct reference to the creation of the 'EU Army', where I was implying military integration for CANZUK in terms of infantry would be far easier due to the shared language. I wasn't referring to cooperation, and indeed I know this already happens at present. Perhaps I could have worded it more clearly but I was in a rush to make sure I didn't forget anything in the OP lol. At any rate, in the event of a political union CANZUK military integration is easier than EU integration. You don't need to act so hostile to these suggestions, it's merely conjecture about what would happen IF this occurred, I am aware that such an eventuality is very unlikely.You're right, Australia and New Zealand already have excellent links with the Asian markets, including Free Trade Agreements with China, South Korea, Japan and the United States, so what exactly are you offering Australia that they don't already have?
Trading links with Europe, London as a financial centre, military strength, and in general the whole concept is a united Anglosphere (bar the USA because it would totally dominate any arrangement). The whole point is that individually each of these countries can only be regional powers, the UK has more potential to be a global power but exiting the EU will diminish this, imo, but together they can be a global force. Obviously we're all content by ourselves, but there are definitely advantages to having a closer relationship (same argument I used in favour of remaining in the EU basically).It's a preposterous, pompous fantasy. As the joint citizen of two Anglosphere countries and a very strong supporter of the US-UK and US-Australian alliances, I want those alliances to be strengthened and deepened. The English-speaking democracies are essentially the closest thing to family that has even existed in the international order; people who we can truly trust, who we know have our back and will never betray us for reasons that go far beyond self-interest. There is a deep, almost spiritual, tie that binds these five countries and I am all in favour of strengthening that.
I agree, although I am more suspicious of America. I think CANZUK is very unlikely, but I equally think it poses benefits to all constituent nations.But there will be no Anglosphere union; the Americans and the Australians are particularly fierce in defending their sovereignty and have little interest in subjecting their sovereignty to a supranational organisation. And this proposed union gives nothing to Australia that they don't already get from the existing arrangements.
I wouldn't want America in the union for the reasons I stated above. I understand the political concerns of CANZUK, which is why I proposed a federation (perhaps even a confederation). I think Australia will have some benefits, as espoused above.This idea is a peculiarly and laughably British fantasy that will never happen. Deeper and stronger trading, military, intelligence, cultural and educational ties? Yes. Political and economic union? No, it won't happen in the next hundred years and there's little need for it to happen
You seem to be relating this to some sort of neo-British Empire which I've strongly ruled out already, any such union would of course be a union of equals but I can understand the imperial connotations of such a move. I agree that it's unlikely to happen, and may not be needed but that doesn't prevent it from being beneficial nonetheless.