Lowell,

>Would you argue that Canada, Australia, Belize, and dozens more members of
>the Commonwealth aren't separate nations?

They are now, but legally they weren't before 1931. Australia, Canada,
South Africa and Ireland originally only had dominion status and retained
significant constitutional ties to the UK. The Commonwealth Conference of
1931 established the principle of a 'Commonwealth of Nations', which is
when the dominions can rightly be said to have become independent
countries, albeit with a common head of state. However, unlike the other
dominions, the Irish Free State never ratified the accord and instead moved
towards becoming an independent republic by adopting a new constitution in
1937.

Even then, the UK still technically retained certain legislative powers in
Canada and Australia which were finally only abolished in 1980 and 1986
respectively. For this reason, some people claim that they didn't become
independent countries until those dates, but as these powers were rarely
exercised, and only at the request of those countries, I don't think these
claims can be seriously entertained.

The other Commonwealth countries such as Belize, were colonies or
protectorates and were granted outright independence at various times
between 1947 and 1997.

>If commercial laws and taxes differ at all between or among the member
>nations, then smuggling is free to be practiced and entirely to be expected.

It has to be remembered that the partition of Ireland was rather messy and
many properties ended-up straggling what became an international frontier.
Even if there were efforts to regulate the border, there are plenty of
cross-border barns for moving people and goods ;-)

Regards,

Kevin Meynell