Could the White-Majority Colonies have stayed part of Britain?

Uriel

Could those colonies that share British culture and heritage stay part of the UK until today?
Maybe with some selfgoverment like Ulster or Scotland but still with MPs in westminster, one army, one citizenship, one foreign policy,...

I guess that South Africa is going to go its one way.
But Canada, Australia and New Zealand (and maybe some of the carribean and South American colonies)?

If they had kept them on the short lash a little longer and then between 1850-1900 had given them the right to elect their own MPs?
 

Overlord

Uriel said:
Could those colonies that share British culture and heritage stay part of the UK until today?
Maybe with some selfgoverment like Ulster or Scotland but still with MPs in westminster, one army, one citizenship, one foreign policy,...

I guess that South Africa is going to go its one way.
But Canada, Australia and New Zealand (and maybe some of the carribean and South American colonies)?

If they had kept them on the short lash a little longer and then between 1850-1900 had given them the right to elect their own MPs?
Click to expand...
Would be very difficult and could potentially go against the beliefs of the time, cause problems at home etc. Theoretically plausible I suppose, but distance is the real issue, especially if you're thinking actual MPs rather than self governed dominions with links to the crown...
 

Rhunidian

archaeogeek said:
The problem was not whether Newfoundland wanted to stay in the UK, it was whether the UK wanted to keep Newfoundland.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I don't think Canada could have remained annexed. For one, there were bound to be more rebellions against the empire...
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Rhunidian said:
I agree, but I don't think Canada could have remained annexed. For one, there were bound to be more rebellions against the empire...
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, the longer it went on the more likely it was to cause rebellions, at the very least it would have had to remain devolved provinces; there was no way Ontario and Quebec (well Lower and Upper Canadian) internal affairs were being run from Westminster again, Australia and New Zealand was similarly too far. And of course having devolved parliaments in the United Kingdom would not have been sitting well with not only with the non-white dominions, but probably also with today's constituent countries.
 

Riain

Banned
The distance is a killer, this is bound to cause divergent views and is probably the reason why things turned out the way they did.
 

Lord Brisbane

For something like this to work, IMHO the entire structure of power and government would need to be redrawn, which many in England wouldn't support. I'll dig out the papers I have from one of the early imperial conferences that specifically deals with imperial federation.
 

Uriel

Lord Brisbane said:
For something like this to work, IMHO the entire structure of power and government would need to be redrawn, which many in England wouldn't support. I'll dig out the papers I have from one of the early imperial conferences that specifically deals with imperial federation.
Click to expand...

Would be nice :)
 
Thande

Thande

Donor
Imperial Federation is an oft-mentioned idea but the fact is that most people weren't enthusiastic about the fact. One reason why the British Empire worked so well is because the dominions and even the colonies to some extent were left to run themselves. Trying to govern everything from a central authority is doomed to the same kind of problems the EU faces now, or for that matter that (Great) Britain herself saw during the American Revolutionary War.
 
Julius Vogel

Julius Vogel

I think there would need to be all sorts of structural reforms, which would be unlikely to occur outside of hindsight.

That being said, people of my grandfather's generation still saw themselves as British right up until WW2.
 
Thande

Thande

Donor
Julius Vogel said:
I think there would need to be all sorts of structural reforms, which would be unlikely to occur outside of hindsight.

That being said, people of my grandfather's generation still saw themselves as British right up until WW2.
Click to expand...

The problem wasn't the colonies and the dominions most of the time, it was in Britain itself. People didn't want to take on global problems and many saw them as a distraction from internal social reforms. You look at how Rhodesia broke successive foreign ministers trying to get shut of the damn' place in the 1960s and 70s.
 

Xavier

Thande said:
Imperial Federation is an oft-mentioned idea but the fact is that most people weren't enthusiastic about the fact. One reason why the British Empire worked so well is because the dominions and even the colonies to some extent were left to run themselves. Trying to govern everything from a central authority is doomed to the same kind of problems the EU faces now, or for that matter that (Great) Britain herself saw during the American Revolutionary War.
Click to expand...
Uh, in a federation the central authority doesn't try to govern everything themselves, it is the very raison d'être of a federation!
A federation would let all members run their own internal affairs (aside from making sure that some minimum norms and such are met) and have a common foreign & defence policy. (note, the EU isn't trying to do everything from Brussels either, just saying:rolleyes:)
 

cumbria

Banned
An Imperial Federation was very possible.

Supporters of Imperial Federation regarded the United Kingdom as having two possible futures; imperial union and continued long-term importance or imperial dissolution and the reduction of the status of the UK to a second-class nation.

It was seen as a method of solving the Home Rule problem in Ireland, as England, Scotland, and Ireland (along with the other members of the Old Commonwealth) would have their own Parliaments. Westminster would become a purely Imperial body.

In response to claims that geography was against federation on such a large scale, it was said that scientific advancements would solve the difficulty. Morris in 1885 reminded listeners to his lecture that London was no more difficult to reach from Melbourne in 1885 than it was to reach from Orkney Island after the Act of Union in 1707. It was no more difficult for a colonist to reach England in 1885, he said, than it was for a Californian delegate to reach Washington DC before passes over the Rockies were made.

The Imperial Federation League was founded in London in 1884 and subsequently branches were established in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Barbados, and British Guiana. While the proposal was often associated with segments of the British Conservative Party, it was popular among also proponents of Liberal or New Imperialism such as E. M. Forster. The movement was also a vehicle for British race nationalism, inspired by such writers as Charles Dilke and John Robert Seeley and ideas of a greater Britain encompassing the largely white self-governing colonies and dominions.

The colonial branches of the Imperial Federation League in fact outlived the demise of the home branch in London, which collapsed in 1896 when it failed to resolve internal disputes over imperial trade policy.
 

cumbria

Banned
The Dominions had to have independence forced upon them.

The Statute of Westminster 1931 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom (22 & 23 Geo. V c. 4, 11 December 1931) which established legislative equality for the self-governing dominions of the British Empire and the United Kingdom, with a few residual exceptions, notably India.

The Statute is of historical importance because it marked the effective legislative independence of these countries, either immediately or upon ratification. The residual constitutional powers retained by the Westminster parliament have now largely been superseded by subsequent legislation. Its current relevance is that it sets the basis for the continuing relationship between the Commonwealth realms and the Crown.

Australia had not ratified the Statute till 1942; to clarify government war powers, the adoption was backdated to 3 September 1939—the start of World War II. However the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 continued to have application in individual Australian states until the Australia Act 1986 came into effect.
New Zealand adopted the Statute on 25 November 1947 by its Statute of Westminster Adoption Act.
Newfoundland never adopted the Statute; by request of its government, the United Kingdom resumed direct rule in 1934 and maintained it until Newfoundland became a province of Canada in 1949.
 
Thande

Thande

Donor
Xavier said:
Uh, in a federation the central authority doesn't try to govern everything themselves, it is the very raison d'être of a federation!
A federation would let all members run their own internal affairs (aside from making sure that some minimum norms and such are met) and have a common foreign & defence policy. (note, the EU isn't trying to do everything from Brussels either, just saying:rolleyes:)
Click to expand...

I know that, but Imperial Federation would be a hell of a lot more centralised than what existed in OTL. I can't imagine three layers of government being terribly popular in federal dominions like Canada or Australia, either...
 

cumbria

Banned
Thande said:
I know that, but Imperial Federation would be a hell of a lot more centralised than what existed in OTL. I can't imagine three layers of government being terribly popular in federal dominions like Canada or Australia, either...
Click to expand...

The model would be two layers of government.

The Imperial Parliament as Westminister with Parliaments in England, Ireland, Scotland, New Zealand and Newfoundland.

It is likely that they would be no need for an Australian or Canadian Federal Parliament.
Of course no federal parliament for these nations would have been popular at the time.
 
Thande

Thande

Donor
cumbria said:
The model would be two layers of government.

The Imperial Parliament as Westminister with Parliaments in England, Ireland, Scotland, New Zealand and Newfoundland.

It is likely that they would be no need for an Australian or Canadian Federal Parliament.
Of course no federal parliament for these nations would have been popular at the time.
Click to expand...

That's a rather early POD then isn't it considering Canada already had a federal parliament in 1867?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top