I think he was referring to our historical situation, the one recorded in the unamended Constitution and in place for a significant chunk of time.
Which means that a person could be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and not have a right to enter the UK. “Sorry Prime Minister, but the UK Border Agency is backlogged, your entry clearence won’t be renewed before it expires”.
The High Court has commented on this issue in Sykes v Cleary [1992] HCA 60.
The key conclusion is that candidates are disqualified from election to Parliament if they do not take “all reasonable steps” to renounce their other citizenship before nomination. The judgements all consistently state that “what amounts to the taking of reasonable steps to renounce foreign nationality must depend upon the circumstances of the particular case”. If the foreign country has a recognised legal method of allowing its citizens to renounce their citizenship, then “reasonable steps” would require that prospective candidates follow that process. A mere unilateral declaration renouncing citizenship by the candidate would not be sufficient.
In the situation where the foreign country does not allow renunciation of citizenship, or does allow it but will not exercise discretion in the particular case, Dawson J had this to say:
Mason CJ, Toohey J and McHugh J reach a similar conclusion in their judgement, arguing that such a situation (i.e. a rigid application of section 44(i) of the Constitution in the case of candidates legally unable to renounce their citizenship)
So the legal position at the moment is that if candidates do all that is reasonably possible to renounce their foreign citizenship, the bloody-minded refusal of a tinpot dictator will not stand in the way of their successful election. I note that this is the position that the Australian Electoral Commission takes in its information briefings to prospective candidates for the House or Senate. Regarding section 44(i) of the Constitution it states:
Would it still be constitutionally acceptable for a peer to lead the government from the non-elected Lords?
Its not stopping Peter Mandelson from trying. Basically we have the Alec Douglas-Holmes precedent, you can become PM, but give up your peerage and get elected as soon as practicable.
Lord Whitelaw was a peer and had Maggie been knocked off by the PIRA at Brighton as they intended would most likely have become PM for a time.
Viscount Whitelaw’s peerage was an hereditary one. Like Alec Douglas-Home (formerly the 14th Earl of Home), he could have disclaimed it under the Peerage Act 1963 and got himself elected back into the Commons.
Lord Mandelson received a life peerage. I don’t think that the Peerage Act 1963 makes any provision for a life peer to disclaim his peerage.
None of Golda’s predecessors were born here, either. The first Israeli prime minister to be born in the area that would later be Israel was Yitzhak Rabin; the first (and only) prime minister to be born in the State of Israel is Benjamin Netanyahu
Allon was acting PM for about a month after Eshkol died, and he was born in Kfar Tavor.
There is no such requirement in France.
There’s no legal reason why not, but in practice it hasn’t happened since Lord Salisbury’s government a century ago, and the general view is that it would be politically unacceptable to have a Prime Minister who could not be held to account in the Commons.
When Halifax was a possibility for the Premiership in 1940 one of the objections was his peerage; the King raised the possibility of placing his peerage in abeyance for the duration of the war.
When Home and Hailsham decided to run for the Tory leadership in 1963 they did so on the understanding that they would disclaim their peerages using the brief window of opportunity which the passage of the Peerage Act 1963 had chanced to provide them with (never envisaged when it was devised).
Or Irish.
You can be a New Zealander, like Bryan Gould
My English friend found it amusing that in becoming an NZ citizen he had to swear allegiance to “Elizabeth II, Queen of New Zealand”… you know, as opposed to his previous queen… 
Peru has the requirement
Well, the Queen of New Zealand is a different legal person from the Queen of the United Kingdom. Back in 1836, the King of the United Kingdom and the King of Hanover were different legal persons, but the same natural person (King William IV). However, the next year the successors were Victoria as Queen of the United Kingdom and Ernest Augustus I as King of Hanover. It would be legally possible (though in practice highly unlikely) for New Zealand to adopt a different succession to the throne, and have a different monarch from the U.K. in the future.
It would violate the Statute of Westminster if NZ did so.
Perhaps, but New Zealand could ignore that if it chose to, and the U.K. and other Commonwealth dominions could not do much about it. But, as I said, it’s highly unlikely. It’s much more likely that N.Z. would become a republic and no longer have the Queen or her successors as head of state.
Not so much violate the Statute, as amend it, to the extent it applies to New Zealand. The Statute is now part of the constitutional structure of each of the Commonwealth realms, and each one can amend the Statute using their own processes to amend their own constitutions.
I’m fairly certain that’s there’s precedent in common law for the voluntary renunciation of a life peerage.