Greater Britain

Tyr · Dec 1, 2004

I can't find any links right now but I've read about this in a lot of places.

Back in the late 19th century there was a large movement in the British empire towards greater centralisation of the empire amongst its anglosaxon members- in short making Canada, Britain, Ireland, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and some other small bits and pieces into one big country with their own MPs in a central parliment in London.
Most ways of doing this seemed to suggest a structure somewhat similar to the US prior to the us civil war- they all have their own minor domestic policy though foreign policy and big domestic issues are handled by the central government.
Around 1900 there was a vote on whether to go ahead with this- in Australia it came out quite conclusivly yes however in Canada the government at the time was very Quebecois and pro US so they went with no, South Africa didn't see a point in saying yes if Canada had already said no so said no.
So what if a more English government had been in power in Canada?
How well could this nation have worked at the time/work today?

Tony Williams · Dec 1, 2004

Not an answer to your question but a comment: I believe France has followed a policy like this for its existing colonies. Of course, all of those are very small countries.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

Grey Wolf · Dec 1, 2004

Tony Williams said:
Not an answer to your question but a comment: I believe France has followed a policy like this for its existing colonies. Of course, all of those are very small countries.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

I believe they did it with larger colonies. Algeria IIRC was treated as being an integral part of the French realm, but I am sure I have read that the first black French politician was sent from Senegal.

Grey Wolf

Alayta · Dec 1, 2004

They had this policy and have it now, but now the french overseas-possesions are small. But they are part of the EU, so we have EU in the carribean and in the pacific.

the difference to the mentioned english colonies:
Whites are a minority.
In Canada, australia and ireland

whites are a majority, I belileve. The population in these countries might well have apprichiated a worldwide state.

I think it would have been possible and would have affected our tl enormously!!!!!

fortyseven · Dec 1, 2004

Have a POD where there aren't enough French in Canada maybe.

Bill Cameron · Dec 1, 2004

I think you're referring to 'Imperial Preference' and Joe Chamberlain.

Chamberlain was a bit of an oddity among high ranking, British politicians at the turn of the last century because he had actually worked for a living. He made a fortune as a Birmingham screw manufacturer, retired early, and took up orchid growing and politics. He proposed an imperial trade barrier; goods from within the empire would remain duty free while those outside it were taxed.

Because the Conservative Party had a vocal free trade bloc, he actually resigned his government post in order to campaign for the issue. In a manner eerily prescient of today's politics, his opponents seized on one big lie; Food Will Cost More, and hammered it repeatedly home regardless of the facts, the truth, or logic. 'Imperial Preference' lost out when the Conservatives lost the general election.

IIRC, after an pan-imperial trade bloc was established, an imperial parliament was supposed to follow. How that might effect the OTL is intriguing. Might Ireland recieve 'home rule' because she'd have PMs in the imperial parliament? What about Britain's entry into WW1? The entire empire; Canada, Oz, NZ, etc., went to war on the say of the King-Emperor alone. How all this would effect India is another interesting avenue to explore.

Bill

Bill Cameron · Dec 1, 2004

Alayta said:
They had this policy and have it now, but now the french overseas-possesions are small. But they are part of the EU, so we have EU in the carribean and in the pacific.

Yup, that's right, the EU has possessions in the Pacific. Possessions where it engages in nuclear weapon tests.

It's a good thing the EU is so noble and perfect and all so that rest of us can admire and learn from it.

Bill

Nicole · Dec 1, 2004

And I believe European (/French) Guiana is important for space launch tests..

On topic, assuming that Canada elects a more Englsih government (I don't know why, but it does), and votes yes on the measure. I'm not sure how South Africa would vote, but let's assume it goes yes too... And add New Zealand.. So now we have an uber-United Kingdom stretching from North America to Europe to Africa to Australia and the Pacific Islands.. How long will the nation last? Yes, they all have Anglo-Saxon heritage, but Canada has a strong French influence, South Africa has Dutch native African, etc... Can this varied nation last?

Phoenix · Dec 1, 2004

Imajin said:
On topic, assuming that Canada elects a more Englsih government (I don't know why, but it does), and votes yes on the measure. I'm not sure how South Africa would vote, but let's assume it goes yes too... And add New Zealand.. So now we have an uber-United Kingdom stretching from North America to Europe to Africa to Australia and the Pacific Islands.. How long will the nation last? Yes, they all have Anglo-Saxon heritage, but Canada has a strong French influence, South Africa has Dutch native African, etc... Can this varied nation last?

It could last, as well, in the war, the military cooperation would be better, as they would all be under a single command structure.
It also might have led to greater industrial development in the Dominions, and a greater control on minerals, as Canada alone produced 82% of the worlds nickel in the 30's from a few mines, how would it be if the Empire controlled a majority of most, if not all production of minerals, and had high tarrifs on exports?

Food would not have been a problem as Canada could export to the UK the equivalent amount of food as the US had been supplying to the UK.

Tony Williams · Dec 2, 2004

Bill Cameron said:
Yup, that's right, the EU has possessions in the Pacific. Possessions where it engages in nuclear weapon tests.

It ran some in 1995. Nothing since AFAIK.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

Chengar Qordath · Dec 2, 2004

Interesting speculation, might the US ever consider joining this massive all-English trading block/empire. Wilson, being a rabid Anglophile, might well end up campaigning for that instead of his League of Nations.

Max Sinister · Dec 2, 2004

Bill Cameron said:
Yup, that's right, the EU has possessions in the Pacific. Possessions where it engages in nuclear weapon tests.

It's a good thing the EU is so noble and perfect and all so that rest of us can admire and learn from it.

Excuse me? The EU has what? France has, of course. And they don't think of handing their nukes to the EU government, AFAIK. And they didn't give any merde when every other European country protested against their tests.

zoomar · Dec 2, 2004

Sounds like Churchill's fanciful "Union of English Speaking Peoples". Would that it ixisted!

Alayta · Dec 2, 2004

Bill Cameron said:
It's a good thing the EU is so noble and perfect and all so that rest of us can admire and learn from it.

At least some sort of diplomatic dialectic.

Tyr · Dec 2, 2004

Bill Cameron said:
I think you're referring to 'Imperial Preference' and Joe Chamberlain.

No this came before that, I think he came around after the vote (which I referred to) put a nail in the full one big English country idea.

Bill Cameron said:
IIRC, after an pan-imperial trade bloc was established, an imperial parliament was supposed to follow. How that might effect the OTL is intriguing. Might Ireland recieve 'home rule' because she'd have PMs in the imperial parliament?

Ireland had MPs in British parliament and it is through them it did achieve home rule. Irish independance isn't the same as the American revolution with the Irish over throwing British rule etc... It was Irish MPs proposing bills to establish it from the late 19th century onwards with the majority they were defeated by getting smaller every time. I really can't stand this popular foreign view of Ireland being a slave to Britain, Ireland was the poorest area of Britain however it was still a full part of Britain- its gdp per captita was 3rd in the world (after the UK mainland 1st and US 2nd).

The French way of doing things is somewhat different to this but then they are doing it with totally alien cultures, here it is people with most of the same traditions. Britain is more about letting people govern themselves then France- we have the Channel Isles and the Isle of Mann as semi-independant bodies where they could easily have been integrated into Britain proper had either side felt it worthwhile.

For the US joining- I don't think this would happen for a long time, the monarch would be king of Greater Britain so unless things go very bad for the US in the 20th century and they are given special concessions they won't join.

For South Africa- The boers would be against it but the blacks were quite pro British at the time, they still saw Brits as the people who freed them from slavery. They would welcome being brought back under British rule and so becoming totally equal citizens rather then the second class citizens they were gradually becoming under home rule.

India- Totally up in the air, it would need a big change in the way the thing was ran and I don't think they could become fully paid up members due to not having the common history though I'd think there could be some sort of 'special friend' area opened up for India and the smaller non English nations.

fortyseven · Dec 2, 2004

For India, it depends on if there's a Khilafat Movement and British relations with the Ottomans.