A Commonwealth Union.

[lounge60]

What if,we said after WW-II,The Commonwealth countries,or at least UK,Canada,Australia and New Zeland,had organized in the same way of the modern European Union,with a Parlamient,and institutions as Council of the Commonwealth Union, the Commonwealth Commission, the Court of Justice of the Commonwealth Union, the Commonwealth Central Bank, and the Commonwealth Court of Auditors,and had adopted the same currency,a Commonwhealth sterling common for all these countries?
If a Italian a French and a German that not speak the same language and have different history and traditions are togheter in the same federal union,why not a Britannic,a Canadian an Australian and a New Zelander that have much more things in commin (two among many: language and Sovereign)?

 

[tofer]

I have a feeling that the postwar British government would have problems backing a new currency and that shifting everyone onto Sterling would lead to a devaluation.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

What if, we said after WW-II, The Commonwealth countries, or at least UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, had organized in the same way of the modern European Union, with a Parlamient,and institutions as Council of the Commonwealth Union, the Commonwealth Commission, the Court of Justice of the Commonwealth Union, the Commonwealth Central Bank, and the Commonwealth Court of Auditors, and had adopted the same currency, a Commonwhealth sterling common for all these countries?

If a Italian a French and a German that not speak the same language and have different history and traditions are togheter in the same federal union, why not a Britain, a Canadian, an Australian and a New Zelander that have much more things in common (two among many: language and Sovereign)?

The EU has one advantage that the Commonwealth hasn't, Geography.

IOTL some of the institutions you proposed existed in 1945, but had different names.. E.g. the Law Lords of the British House of Lords were effectively the Court of Justice of the Commonwealth Union. The Sterling Area was the Commonwealth currency in all but name. E.g. One New Zealand Pound equalled one South African Pound and one Pound Sterling. Meanwhile the Australian Pound had a fixed exchange rate of 20 Australian Shillings to 16 British Shillings.

AFAIK the Sterling Area broke up between the late 1950s and early 1960s, but One Irish Pound was worth One Pound Sterling until the Irish Republic joined the then EEC's Exchange Range Mechanism in the late 1970s.

But to have a remote chance of a Commonwealth Union happening the UK has to perform better in World War II including holding Singapore and to have an economy that performs much better afterwards, at least better than West Germany's and probably as well as Japan's.

 

[Dan1988]

I have a feeling that the postwar British government would have problems backing a new currency and that shifting everyone onto Sterling would lead to a devaluation.

Definitely. For one, Canadians would be pissed - they benefitted greatly from Bretton Woods, and most of its trade and imported pop culture is American. Shifting from the dollar to sterling would create a second Great Depression.

 

[Riain]

The EU has one advantage that the Commonwealth hadn't, Geography.

This always seem to get missed in the Commonwealth threads.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

This always seem to get missed in the Commonwealth threads.

Yes, if Australia and New Zealand really had been a few miles south of the Isle of Wight they wouldn't have been colonies that evolved into self-governing dominions and finally into independent states - they would have been parts of the UK from the start.

 

[Riain]

Yes, if Australia and New Zealand really had been a few miles south of the Isle of Wight they wouldn't have been colonies that evolved into self-governing dominions and finally into independent states - they would have been parts of the UK from the start.

Correct! Even close neighbours like Australia/NZ/Fiji didn't federate and Canada/Newfoundland waited for a century and still had it pushed onto them to an extent.

Federation doesn't just fall out of the sky, there must be compelling reasons for it.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Definitely. For one, Canadians would be pissed - they benefitted greatly from Bretton Woods, and most of its trade and imported pop culture is American. Shifting from the dollar to sterling would create a second Great Depression.

In 1952 during the negotiations for the purchase of HMS Powerful (which became HMCS Bonaventure) the Canadian Minister of National Defence asked to pay for the ship with 21 million Canadian Dollars worth of Canadian Cheese! The book I read that in said that the UK's acute shortage of gold and dollar reserves meant the UK could not agree to this savoury suggestion.

 

[Great Britain]

I never understand the scepticism for that people have for this idea,
Yes it is true that after the battle of Singapore, Australia and New Zealand moved away from Britain and towards the US for defence and protection,however the countries all had the same head of state, most citizens of the white dominions(with the exception of Canada) were born or had parents born in the UK and the UK still bought a huge number of agricultural products from New Zealand and Australia. All countries had the same system of government, same language and mutual respect for each other.

Furthermore even today Australia has offered the UK a free trade deal post Brexit, this is despite the years of devastation we caused their agricultural markets when we joined the EEC in the 1970's.

Until the 1980's the privy council could still interfere in legal disputes of Canada and Austalia and whilst a commonwealth party would be unlike the various parties of the commonwealth have far more in common with each other than the EU parties so a commonwealth parliament could be possible but rather difficult to pull off.

Britain in particular made a lot of short sighted decisions post war and so if less mistakes were made and with a bigger economy, and thus more clout on the world stage the white dominions may still look to them for leadership even post ww2.I think it's quite easy to right this idea of with hindsight but who would have seen 60 years ago that Asia would become an industrial powerhouse from which Australia and New Zealand would buy goods, who could have seen the crippling of the commonwealth as a political organisation pre suez.

It is only down to a lot of bad mistakes and bad luck for the commonwealth ( especially the UK) that something similar (maybe without a parliament and shared currency) didn't develop OTL a much closer commonwealth with some political and economic clout was very possible in 1945.

NB I'm not saying a federation is possible but a closer commonwealth with some supranational and intergovernmental elements rather than OTl intergovernmental links only.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Correct! Even close neighbours like Australia/NZ/Fiji didn't federate and Canada/Newfoundland waited for a century and still had it pushed onto them to an extent.

Federation doesn't just fall out of the sky, there must be compelling reasons for it.

There are also:

• the short lived Federation of the West Indies;
• the longer lived Federation of Rhodesia and Nyassaland;
• the failed attempt to incorporated the High Commission Territories (modern Botswana, Lesoto and Swaziland) into South Africa;
• the failed attempt to turn the East African High Commission into a country called East Africa, the best that could be done was to create Tanzania from Tanganyika and Zanzibar;
• Brunei not joining Malaysia and Singapore seceding;
• the Malta referendum;
• and the biggie - the partition of India into India and Pakistan which in turn split into two countries Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Nigeria was a federation of smaller adjacent colonies created in the 1900s, but they had a civil war in the 1960s when Biafra tried to secede.

 

[sparky42]

AFAIK the Sterling Area broke up between the late 1950s and early 1960s, but One Irish Pound was worth One Pound Sterling until the Irish Republic joined the then EEC's Exchange Range Mechanism in the late 1970s.

Not really sure using the Irish situation is a valid point for the chances of a stronger Commonwealth. That was simply the Republic not bothering to create a Central Bank until joining the EEC.

 

[sparky42]

I never understand the scepticism for that people have for this idea,
Yes it is true that after the battle of Singapore, Australia and New Zealand moved away from Britain and towards the US for defence and protection,however the countries all had the same head of state, most citizens of the white dominions(with the exception of Canada) were born or had parents born in the UK and the UK still bought a huge number of agricultural products from New Zealand and Australia. All countries had the same system of government, same language and mutual respect for each other.

Furthermore even today Australia has offered the UK a free trade deal post Brexit, this is despite the years of devastation we caused their agricultural markets when we joined the EEC in the 1970's.

Until the 1980's the privy council could still interfere in legal disputes of Canada and Austalia and whilst a commonwealth party would be unlike the various parties of the commonwealth have far more in common with each other than the EU parties so a commonwealth parliament could be possible but rather difficult to pull off.

Britain in particular made a lot of short sighted decisions post war and so if less mistakes were made and with a bigger economy, and thus more clout on the world stage the white dominions may still look to them for leadership even post ww2.I think it's quite easy to right this idea of with hindsight but who would have seen 60 years ago that Asia would become an industrial powerhouse from which Australia and New Zealand would buy goods, who could have seen the crippling of the commonwealth as a political organisation pre suez.

It is only down to a lot of bad mistakes and bad luck for the commonwealth ( especially the UK) that something similar (maybe without a parliament and shared currency) didn't develop OTL a much closer commonwealth with some political and economic clout was very possible in 1945.

NB I'm not saying a federation is possible but a closer commonwealth with some supranational and intergovernmental elements rather than OTl intergovernmental links only.

Maybe because the idea of a "Federation" never got off the ground when the British Empire was at it's strongest, let alone post WW2

 

[Riain]

I never understand the scepticism for that people have for this idea,

I suspect the following are the root of your misunderstanding.

the countries all had the same head of state

Until the 1980's the privy council could still interfere in legal disputes of Canada and Austalia

The GG is the de facto Australian head of state, appointed by the British King/Queen on the 'advice' of the PM, advice that can not be ignored. This was first proved in 1930 when Australian born Isaac Isaacs was appointed as GG over the objections of the King.

The Privy Council was the highest court of appeal in Australia, permission had to be granted by the High Court, which happened only once in 1912, and could not be used for Constitutional matters. It was further limited in 1968 and 75 and by the time it was knocked on the head it was long considered obsolete, and Canada abolished it in 1949. So no, the Privy Council could not interfere with legal disputes up to the 80s.

It is only down to a lot of bad mistakes and bad luck for the commonwealth ( especially the UK) that something similar (maybe without a parliament and shared currency) didn't develop OTL a much closer commonwealth with some political and economic clout was very possible in 1945.

NB I'm not saying a federation is possible but a closer commonwealth with some supranational and intergovernmental elements rather than OTl intergovernmental links only.

This is true, it was a lost opportunity for all parties in my opinion.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Not really sure using the Irish situation is a valid point for the chances of a stronger Commonwealth. That was simply the Republic not bothering to create a Central Bank until joining the EEC.

I wasn't using it as a point for the chances of a stronger Commonwealth, it was an aside.

According to its Wikipaedia entry the Central Bank of Ireland wasn't created until 1943. Ireland (which left the Commonwealth when it became a republic) joined the then EEC in 1973. The Irish Pound ceased to be at par with the Pound Sterling on 13th March 1979 when the European Exchange Range Mechanism (ERM) went into operation.

 

[tofer]

To be honest if you are talking about this immediately post war the Dominions have only been sovereign nations since 1931-ish so they would likely see attempts to create a Commonwealth Federation as Britain trying to get power back over them.

 

[Count of Crisco]

I could see a POD were the US props up Britain as a way of giving the Soviets another target in case of war. So rather than face off against the one superpower and its collection of allied minor nations the USSR would face the US and Commonwealth.
Or maybe the US is given some status in such a union when it is suggested to secure American support?

 

[WILDGEESE]

I have a feeling that the postwar British government would have problems backing a new currency and that shifting everyone onto Sterling would lead to a devaluation.

I was under the assumption that if more countries use a currency, that said currency then increases in value not devalues. Example being the hardness of the US $, as it's the defacto world currency in regards to the trading of commodities such as Gold, Silver, Petroleum, Aircraft etc.

Might be wrong as I'm no monetary expert.

Regards filers

 

[TheMann]

Definitely. For one, Canadians would be pissed - they benefitted greatly from Bretton Woods, and most of its trade and imported pop culture is American. Shifting from the dollar to sterling would create a second Great Depression.

But we're talking around the time of Bretton Woods here, and Canada, while it had a big relationship with the United States, was not as tied to them as they are now. But replacing American influence with Commonwealth is still an enormously tall order nonetheless. You aren't wrong, but Canada would not necessarily be sucked back in a depression as a result.

 

[tofer]

I was under the assumption that if more countries use a currency, that said currency then increases in value not devalues. Example being the hardness of the US $, as it's the defacto world currency in regards to the trading of commodities such as Gold, Silver, Petroleum, Aircraft etc.

Might be wrong as I'm no monetary expert.

Regards filers

You are right, I think, provided there is sufficient supply of money to meet needs.

 

[Riain]

Britain had the Sterling Area with quite a few countries in it up until 1967 which IIUC was quite handy for Britain.