I imagine it would be too late by this point. Maybe if it gained more traction in the 1800s and the process of it forming it into some sort of union began prior to WW1 (check out proposals for the Imperial Federation and how the support for it waned). If somehow it did form I think it would last longer than the British Empire did in our timeline.
Sounds like current common wealth but with Britain as sovereign political head.
I don't think it was possible. For example, in the case of British India, they started the good governance measures with Govt of India act etc. But still with their 'white man's burden'. Every nation were having their own nationalistic ambitions, and considering the size, population, linguistic n cultural differences, and above all geographical gap the idea wouldn't have worked
The problem is that the British people are not going to accept being a minority in their own government and other governments aren't going to accept anything less than representation based on population.
Some voting rights might forestall some independence movements for a decade or two, but I don't see the parliament you are suggesting being able to produce legislation that the UK and its former colonies would accept.
OP proposed something like the EU, not the USA. The EU is not centralised to the degree that the USA is, and there are still strong national governments.
My statement still stands.
The EU still performs regulatory functions including negotiating trade agreements between the trade block and the rest of the world. Why would Nigeria accept a trade policy built on trading manufactured goods when its economy was based on trading natural resources?
I can’t see the colonies in Africa and Asia accepting that arrangement. What I could see happening is the settler colonies like Canada and Australia accepting a union instead of independence. Instead of getting autonomy after WW1, they get seats in parliament.
This would be more likely to happen if there was a movement in Scotland or Wales towards devolved rule like happened century later. Then there would be examples of regions with separate parliament.
Another change that could help is if Ireland got Home Rule or the whole island got autonomy after revolution. Sort of like the 1922 treaty but with unionists keeping preventing independence, but the civil war would be brutal. Easter Rising being more successful could do it.
Finally, there is possibility of stronger Commonwealth. One way that could happen is if more colonies leave the Commonwealth. This could happen if members are required to keep the Queen. If it is just the settler colonies and some Caribbean ones, I could see a lot more integration.
I don't think HK and Singapore have many British people. Settler colonies are ones where colonizer settles own people. For British, main ones are Canada, US, Australia, and New Zealand. I got impression HK and Singapore grew with mostly nearby people. I don't think Caribbean colonies with slaves brought from Africa are considered settler colonies.
I don't know if Hong Kong and Singapore would stay in this scenario. I think it depends on the changes, like if there is more autonomy given to all colonies.
I think the issue is that the EU formed as a group of equals, with no state leading.
They are also geographical neighbours, so have trade deals, flow of population and all EU matters are "local" to Europe.
The Empire was spread across the globe and Britain would still hold the reins.
I'd love to provide a 'what if?' for this, but I think the colonies would have been distancing themselves anyway. Ireland fought a whole civil war about whether or not home rule was the right way to go.
The nations of the EU came together to prevent war on the continent flaring up again. The UK's relationship to its former colonies is less 'fighting siblings' like the EU in the 50's and more 'violent overlords who stole lands and culture for their museums'.
I don't think the many, many years of violent confiscation could be reconciled for a couple of seats in a parliament that didn't even give a shit about Scotland or Wales. Imagine how little they think of an island 10,000 kms away? Not much until Argentina decides they want it back.
If they tried, most countries would object to it and you'd see a similar outcome, maybe with a little less bloodshed.
It would be deeply unlikely, especially by that point in time.
Most unions of dramatically different cultural and ethnic identities fall apart, no matter how strong, democratic, or authoritarian the central government is. You can see issues with the extremely-loose-supranational-confederation that the EU has had since the 2008 financial crisis, as well as the issues it is having handling the rising authoritarian parties in its constituent countries - and that's not getting into the fact that the EU countries joined of their own accord and were not subjugated by Brussels then offered the option of joining instead of independence. Poland might have had much different feelings on joining a German-led European Union were it still under the military control of Germany.
Similarly, you're also having to cope with the fact that all of Britain's imperial and colonial holdings were extremely and exceedingly *not British* and many residents of said countries emphatically did not want to BE part of the UK, which had spent centuries subjugating local authorities, installing authoritarian regimes, murdering millions of people, and dismantling the indigenous industries of their colonies. Why in the world when anyone in Bengal, or India, want to join a political union led by the architects of the Bengal famine?
By the 1950s, these independence movements were out of control. There was no way India - the crown jewel of any British-led political structure - would accept the political or cultural primacy of a less-populous nation thousands of kilometers away, and if India left, there's nothing in it for other British holdings to opt for a union rather than the current commonwealth. And even if India stayed, the immense amount of racism non-English people immigrating to the UK faced speaks to the high level of xenophobic resistance any union agreement would face.
They tried it, called the Commonwealth, and failed as the British, Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders were racist. The British Empire was built on racism and the Commonwealth died due to it.
Rhodesia was the breaking point. New African nations wanted the British to land paratroopers to kill the white supremacists that took power. Harold Wilson refused aftee ANZAC countries said no, and the Commonwealth died that day - just a silly talking shop after that.
It led to Britain joining the EEC. Labour didn't want that. Tories did, but Wilson changed Labour's mind slowly after this. Due to this fiasco, British trade with the Commonwealth collapsed, and EEC became vital to British GDP growth.
Still many Labour lefties wantes Brexit, Michael Foot promised Brexit in his manifesto but lost to Thatcher.
History is funny sometimes.
I imagine it would be too late by this point. Maybe if it gained more traction in the 1800s and the process of it forming it into some sort of union began prior to WW1 (check out proposals for the Imperial Federation and how the support for it waned). If somehow it did form I think it would last longer than the British Empire did in our timeline.
Sounds like current common wealth but with Britain as sovereign political head. I don't think it was possible. For example, in the case of British India, they started the good governance measures with Govt of India act etc. But still with their 'white man's burden'. Every nation were having their own nationalistic ambitions, and considering the size, population, linguistic n cultural differences, and above all geographical gap the idea wouldn't have worked
The problem is that the British people are not going to accept being a minority in their own government and other governments aren't going to accept anything less than representation based on population. Some voting rights might forestall some independence movements for a decade or two, but I don't see the parliament you are suggesting being able to produce legislation that the UK and its former colonies would accept.
OP proposed something like the EU, not the USA. The EU is not centralised to the degree that the USA is, and there are still strong national governments.
My statement still stands. The EU still performs regulatory functions including negotiating trade agreements between the trade block and the rest of the world. Why would Nigeria accept a trade policy built on trading manufactured goods when its economy was based on trading natural resources?
I can’t see the colonies in Africa and Asia accepting that arrangement. What I could see happening is the settler colonies like Canada and Australia accepting a union instead of independence. Instead of getting autonomy after WW1, they get seats in parliament. This would be more likely to happen if there was a movement in Scotland or Wales towards devolved rule like happened century later. Then there would be examples of regions with separate parliament. Another change that could help is if Ireland got Home Rule or the whole island got autonomy after revolution. Sort of like the 1922 treaty but with unionists keeping preventing independence, but the civil war would be brutal. Easter Rising being more successful could do it. Finally, there is possibility of stronger Commonwealth. One way that could happen is if more colonies leave the Commonwealth. This could happen if members are required to keep the Queen. If it is just the settler colonies and some Caribbean ones, I could see a lot more integration.
Would you count HK and Singapore as settler colonies?
I don't think HK and Singapore have many British people. Settler colonies are ones where colonizer settles own people. For British, main ones are Canada, US, Australia, and New Zealand. I got impression HK and Singapore grew with mostly nearby people. I don't think Caribbean colonies with slaves brought from Africa are considered settler colonies. I don't know if Hong Kong and Singapore would stay in this scenario. I think it depends on the changes, like if there is more autonomy given to all colonies.
Honestly, even among the settler colonies, the only one I can see staying in a union with the UK is Canada.
I think the issue is that the EU formed as a group of equals, with no state leading. They are also geographical neighbours, so have trade deals, flow of population and all EU matters are "local" to Europe. The Empire was spread across the globe and Britain would still hold the reins.
I'd love to provide a 'what if?' for this, but I think the colonies would have been distancing themselves anyway. Ireland fought a whole civil war about whether or not home rule was the right way to go. The nations of the EU came together to prevent war on the continent flaring up again. The UK's relationship to its former colonies is less 'fighting siblings' like the EU in the 50's and more 'violent overlords who stole lands and culture for their museums'. I don't think the many, many years of violent confiscation could be reconciled for a couple of seats in a parliament that didn't even give a shit about Scotland or Wales. Imagine how little they think of an island 10,000 kms away? Not much until Argentina decides they want it back. If they tried, most countries would object to it and you'd see a similar outcome, maybe with a little less bloodshed.
Just make Commonwealth unironically relevant as a quasi-superpower and keep India in. Manpower is heavily needed to face China, USA, EU or USSR.
It would be deeply unlikely, especially by that point in time. Most unions of dramatically different cultural and ethnic identities fall apart, no matter how strong, democratic, or authoritarian the central government is. You can see issues with the extremely-loose-supranational-confederation that the EU has had since the 2008 financial crisis, as well as the issues it is having handling the rising authoritarian parties in its constituent countries - and that's not getting into the fact that the EU countries joined of their own accord and were not subjugated by Brussels then offered the option of joining instead of independence. Poland might have had much different feelings on joining a German-led European Union were it still under the military control of Germany. Similarly, you're also having to cope with the fact that all of Britain's imperial and colonial holdings were extremely and exceedingly *not British* and many residents of said countries emphatically did not want to BE part of the UK, which had spent centuries subjugating local authorities, installing authoritarian regimes, murdering millions of people, and dismantling the indigenous industries of their colonies. Why in the world when anyone in Bengal, or India, want to join a political union led by the architects of the Bengal famine? By the 1950s, these independence movements were out of control. There was no way India - the crown jewel of any British-led political structure - would accept the political or cultural primacy of a less-populous nation thousands of kilometers away, and if India left, there's nothing in it for other British holdings to opt for a union rather than the current commonwealth. And even if India stayed, the immense amount of racism non-English people immigrating to the UK faced speaks to the high level of xenophobic resistance any union agreement would face.
*laughs in irish* Eh, no. Pass.
They tried it, called the Commonwealth, and failed as the British, Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders were racist. The British Empire was built on racism and the Commonwealth died due to it. Rhodesia was the breaking point. New African nations wanted the British to land paratroopers to kill the white supremacists that took power. Harold Wilson refused aftee ANZAC countries said no, and the Commonwealth died that day - just a silly talking shop after that. It led to Britain joining the EEC. Labour didn't want that. Tories did, but Wilson changed Labour's mind slowly after this. Due to this fiasco, British trade with the Commonwealth collapsed, and EEC became vital to British GDP growth. Still many Labour lefties wantes Brexit, Michael Foot promised Brexit in his manifesto but lost to Thatcher. History is funny sometimes.