Been shown to be false, you ditched us
Pretty much, I also think it likely Australia would have done the same even if Britain had packed up and left, perhaps with the Americans, perhaps on your own - Malaya was too important to fall to communist anti-colonialists.
The solution to that whole conundrum was shown later by the Indonesians when the PKI had a stab at revolution in 65'. The beautiful thing about it was you knew who was supporting the MNLA, ethnic Chinese dominated as it was, the simple and effective answer that was always open was just to murder every ethnic Chinese you could get your hands on. The MNLA's likelihood of success... next to nil. And let's face it the PKI was much stronger than the MNLA was ever going to be and it was still solved with a judicious use of violence.
I'm getting confused, Britain abandoned the commonwealth, yet is in trouble for stationing weapons in Singapore? And a hostile and interventionalist Indonesia would have been great for Australia?
Incorrect, your assertion that we ditched you is shown to be slightly faulty. If we ditched you why are we fighting in Borneo? Hostile and inverventionalist, well without you it never would have happened the whole "imperialist" creation of Malaya wouldn't have held water.
Reserve judgement on this, its easy to be supportive when your not expected to do anything.
Agreed, we were fighting in Malaya
Rhodesia and South Africa Interesting, so those regimes were all hunky-dory for you then?
Did we really care about them? No. Heck there were factions both in the Australian and New Zealand government [not to mention fairly open sympathizers, White Australia and the as yet un-named New Zealand version ring a bell] which were highly critical of the embargo, and favored reconciliation and slow reform. They were kept in line solely by virtue of what the Mother Country wanted.
Yeah keeping Suez in the Anglosphere would have been just terrible for Oz, and I really can't find much mention of what Australia did...
Hmmm well despite not being told about it.... we stood by you even when the rest of the world decided you were insane including the States. Sure you would have kept in the Anglosphere... would it have made a measurable difference? No.
Yeah because supporting the self-determination of distant island groups full of white settlers is hardly the precident you want to encourage is it?
Also supporting our Mother Country in a time of need, despite having severe reservations in New Zealand [I know], not sure about Australia.
Here's a fun one for you, Imperial Preference what happened there?
You're funny, ask Canada how being next door to and reliant on a huge trading block works out. Being within the EU allows Britain to influence policy, if we were on the outside we would face their collective barginning to our net cost.
I agree it's not perfect but do you really have bargaining power inside the Union? Call me a cynic but doesn't the Union collect VAT from you and pour it into Eastern Europe, and also well control your trade policy? Another question is does collective bargining really benefit you? Your still one of the worlds largest colony, with a network of nations in the developing world who still look up to you [your "white" colonies have moved on methinks

].
It will always be easier to trade with europe, especially if fuel costs rise, ditto eastern europe still has a long way to go.
Grouping with India might be nice, but then we'd be screwed every time they go through a protectionist phase or political instablity and it much easier to work with 20 or so nations of the same or smaller economic size rather than one huge one.
China is digging deep in africa, to compete there we'd need some sort of supra-national organisation with similar goals to us providing economic and demographic muscle...I wonder where we could get a thing like that?
The EU and the four freedoms are about more than just trade, there about making wealth in other ways too.
True it will be easier to trade with Europe, but a trade deal with the Union would have granted the same effect, perhaps not as well but then you can control your own trade policy. Honestly, your Britain, make us of the brand power

. I'll grant it might well be easier to trade with 20 nations vs 1 [although with 20 regulatory schemes, tax schemes etc] you would be wonder about that.
Africa is going to be trouble, but the majority of functioning states in the darn place are your children and yours alone. None of the other colonial powers can claim they had such a success rate, and your still fairly popular with them to boot. You don't need to invest in the basket cases, you can invest in the functioning improving ones, heck you even have a competitive advantage because they stole your system of law etc.
These would be the four freedoms that Britain well... invented and exported to a large part of the world wouldn't they be?
Yeah have great natural resources whilst Asia booms is totally your own work . Europes slow growth economic growth is tied to its slow population growth - and frankly the HDI is pretty nice in Europe, as long as long term growth is somewhere above population increase I'm not to worried about not matching the growth rates of economies that are playing catch-up, and flirting with social and environmental collapse.
Natural resources are a short-medium turn thing, the big winners in the long term will be education, health, recreation, energy diversification and financial services. I wouldn't be so pessimistic, your growth will see you fall behind, more than a few of the big growth states are hitting institutional and infrastructure walls, but the winners are beginning to take off. My current backing for a state to do well provided its political environment improves is East Timor, oodles of resources, more cash than it can use without causing inflation, a largely foriegn educated government, with endemic corruption which is being stamped out, and a leader with some rather large... staring down Woodside and telling them to either build their refinery in Timor or not to bother is amusing for such a young country.
As a sidenote, I recall some modern Russian high school textbook (on Sociology or somesuch?) claiming that the Blacks might outnumber the Whites in America in half a century or less. Just a fun comparison for people to keep in mind when they extrapolate demographic trends and such.
And the Irish Papists in the early days of Australia and New Zealand, then the Chinese three or four times, then the non-Protestant Europeans, then the "slavic" Europeans, then the Vietnamese [Communists] and well.... et al. Sure its plausible that Australia is going to end up with a couple of theocrats in Parliament, more than likely we will end up with moderate Muslims we have lots of those. France might up with genuine theocrats, but does anyone here see them as ending up as nothing more than a politically sidelined laughing stock? Who in French politics would deal with them?