Nice thought Glendabeth but unrealistic. We should aim for the EU for the purposes of diversity perhaps?

saintfletcher said: "Should or could Australia be a part of the EU?"

While Australia would not be eligible to join the EU, Canberra could seek associate status, as Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, Israel, Jordan and some South American countries already have. Because of Australia's wealth and common culture and values, we would be eagerly embraced.

Australia's problem is that it still looks at Europe from London's perspective. Not from the perspective of London today, but from the anachronistic perspective of pre-1973 London (before the UK joined the ECC). Just because Australia is no longer a "branch office of empire" doesn't mean we have to abandon our traditional ties with Europe. We simply need to renew and reinvigorate them.

The other Anglosphere countries also offer much promise for Australia. One feasible way to expand intra-Anglosphere ties would be to align the Australia-New Zealand CER with NAFTA. Canadian Brent Cameron, author of "The Case for Commonwealth Free Trade", has advocated Canadian entry into the CER. No reason why it couldn't be expanded to include the rest of NAFTA.

What a BS,Australia should only join "hands" with Australians.
Canberra should be'told' by it's citizens and not they other way around. NZ and Australian TGA were going to join forces which is met with great resistance from both our peoples, how successful are both gov's?
I also am an europian by birth but hey why did I leave on my own accord?
EU started as BeNeLux, meaning Belgium,Nederland,Luxemburg joined in the trade deal with sinister result of bringing a Worldorder closer to fruition.Thanks to the Bilderbergers and the "house of Orange" with ties of course with England,Germany,Austria,Denmark etc. So my advice is to you lot, study a bit of history and start making some decisions and take some real action before you haven't got Australia any more.If you need help with action taking ...let me know on this blog.

Belly,

As a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I can assure you that the Commonwealth of Australia is under the rulings of the European Union and for example the European Human rights Provisions apply as such to the Commonwealth of Australia (other then Section 51(xxvi) constitutional provisions) as I have canvassed extensively in my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH.

HANSARD 11-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. CLARK:
Representative government is not an expedient or a makeshift to obviate the necessity of having every man brought into one chamber to give his vote; but it is a substantial institution devised for the special purpose of endeavouring, so far as possible, to get the intelligence and the judgment of the community to decide what shall, and what shall not, be law, and not simply to count mere heads.

We, the people, should take back our constitutional and other legal rights!

Again, if anyone desires to really contribute a intelligent post to this threat then at least consider what I have stated and you may just discover that you are using LEGAL FICTION rather then LEGAL FACTS.

THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA IS NOT A COUNTRY, DOMINION, REPUBLIC, KINGDOM OR EMPIRE AS IT IS A “POLITICAL UNION”, AND IF YOU DO NOT EVEN COMPREHEND THIS THEN YOU CERTAINLY ARE POLITELY STATED “TOTALLY MISGUIDED”

I'm confused.

From reading all the posts so far I am left with the impression that the question being pondered is actually:

"Is it economically more beneficial for Australia to define itself as European or Asian?"

I would've thought that the current cultural similarities between Australia and Europe would exist whether we were a member of any organisation. Equally, our cultural differences with Asia would also exist.

Understanding other people's cultures is undoubtedly important for trade reasons. However, it hasn't been mentioned here yet, equally for security reasons (and no, I don't just mean terrorism).

We can already leverage our cultural similarities. It makes sense to broaden our cultural boundaries so that we can accept, and be accepted by, more than just the cultures contained in the majority of our citizen's heritage's.

The purpose of "Divide and Conquer" is to create conflict. I'm not convinced that any one should be trying to adopt a stance that encourages additional conflict.