AHC: The UK not in the EU but in a commonwealth union with Canada, Australia and NZ

Why would South Africa be left out? It was always considered to be a "white" dominion and was always treated just like any other of the dominions.

I left South Africa out (or put it as a possible addition) because not a whole lot of the other Dominions really liked them, and a lot of South African politicians may not or won't like it. And if they are part of the federation, it'll be a tense relationship with the other Dominions.
 
Post-World War I? I doubt more than EU style free trade/movement.

My solution involves Joseph Chamberlain, that man had the energy to do anything it seems. Technically that timeline's POD is 1898, but merely for Chamberlain it could be moved forward.

Electric Monk said:
At the time Chamberlain was in a strong position in government, with Foreign Secretary Lord Lansdowne being new to his job and without any equivalent to Chamberlain's own power base and this had left Chamberlain a great deal of manoeuvre as regarded his diplomatic efforts. However the impeding retirement of Prime Minister Salisbury would quite naturally leave Chamberlain in a weakened position, especially as Chamberlain was then a member of the Liberal Unionist Party in coalition with the Conservative Party.

By 1901 it was clear to Chamberlain that this was his last chance to muster the reform of the Empire that he so cherished. Furthermore it was such that he could only do so from a greater position of power than he possessed, especially without the fairly broad support of Prime Minister Salisbury. The waning months of 1901 displayed Chamberlain's skills in detail and depth as he comprehensively engineered his take-over of the Liberal Unionist Party and then, promptly, in January of 1902 Chamberlain officially entered into merger talks with the Conservative Party on the basis of establishing tariff reform and enacting Imperial Preference. Although this split the Liberal Unionists rather badly with the Duke of Devonshire (Spencer Compton Cavendish) leading the free trade Liberal Unionists to the cross benches as the Whig Party most of the Liberal Unionist Party remained with Chamberlain and the Conservative coalition.

In May of 1902 the formal merger of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Unionist Party was agreed upon, adopting the name Conservative Union Party. By this time it was quite clear that Chamberlain was aiming to become Prime Minister as the Imperial Preference and Imperial Federation candidate against Arthur Balfour's free trade wing of the party. When Lord Salisbury stepped down in July of 1902 over the death of his wife and with worsening health the race was on.
 

MrP

Banned
My usual solution to the issue of India and other large colonies like Nigeria is to weigh the size of the vote each country would get by a combination of population and GDP or similar economic measure, leaning more towards the economic side of things. That way the UK and similar countries would still have the most votes but as the other states developed their voting power would grow in proportion.
Wouldn't that create a perverse incentive to maintain the non-white Commonwealth states in poverty?
 
The real problem with this is economic.

An EU-like trade block with countries scattered around the globe is going to be difficult.

The EU is a compact body, most of the nations do most of their trade with each other, and it makes sense to set up a common market.

Canada, at least, trades and traded far more with the US than with Britain, and had minimal trade links with Australia and NZ, afaik. (OK, we got our lamb from NZ, oh, and kiwi fruit, but that's hardly enough to make a major trading block.)

Britain probably wouldn't mind a bloc where Oz and Nz sold food to the UK in exchange for manufactured goods - but both those countries presumably want to make their own goods. And if they don't, the fact is that compared to the US, UK goods were a bit pricey, a bit shoddy, and had a longer shipping route. And of course, Canada would be taking a big hit economically to join.

So. Unless the PoD is some sort of political Imperial Federation, as mentioned above, I don't really see this. An Economic unit (like the EEC) just doesn't really make much sense.
 
I agree. If there was a CANZUK union, it would have to be pretty close (common market to make it worthwhile). But Canada has become pretty close to the United States economically, so they'd be taking a pretty tough hit if they did. They might get some opt-out clauses if push comes to shove.

And then there's the question of how does one govern a CANZUK union? If we go with the idea of electoral constituencies, and guess around 100,000 people in an electorate (that's about the average), we get something like 1,255 MPs. And the seat breakdown would look like this:

United Kingdom: 64,105,654; 629 seats
Canada: 35,540,419; 349 seats
Australia: 23,676,400; 232 seats
New Zealand: 4,543,600; 45 seats

Britain has a clear majority of seats on the sole virtue of its larger population. It may end up with two houses, with one apportioned by population, or they may just have representatives allocated by state without regard to how many people.
 
What would the representation be if full economic migration permitted within the bloc, & being composed of Australia, Canada, England, Ireland, Newfoundland, New Zealand, Scotland, South African Union and Wales plus smaller territories?
 
What would the representation be if full economic migration permitted within the bloc, & being composed of Australia, Canada, England, Ireland, Newfoundland, New Zealand, Scotland, South African Union and Wales plus smaller territories?

Maybe none at all? That was, subject to slight qualification, the position up till about the middle of the 20th century when it started to fragment (Simon thinking it started with Canada).

It is quite possible you could end up with formal structures along the lines of the EEC Council of Ministers and certain treaties dealing with key issues. So, a Commonwealth with legal teeth.
 
Maybe none at all? That was, subject to slight qualification, the position up till about the middle of the 20th century when it started to fragment (Simon thinking it started with Canada).

It is quite possible you could end up with formal structures along the lines of the EEC Council of Ministers and certain treaties dealing with key issues. So, a Commonwealth with legal teeth.

That's what I was thinking. If we go with a bicameral chamber for a CANZUK parliament, that might end up being the upper house. And I'd imagine that the Commonwealth would want some form of legal teeth, to make sure that it stays together.

What would the representation be ...being composed of Australia, Canada, England, Ireland, Newfoundland, New Zealand, Scotland, South African Union and Wales plus smaller territories?

If we're adding South Africa? Well, its population is pretty close to Britain's, so it'll be rewarded with a good number of seats. I made a list, but I added Newfoundland to Canada. It's organized by total number of seats, out of a total of 1,259.

United Kingdom: 437 seats
England: 368 seats
Scotland: 36 seats
Wales: 21 seats
Northern Ireland: 12 seats

South Africa: 353 seats
Canada: 242 seats
Australia: 165 seats
R. of Ireland: 31 seats
New Zealand: 31 seats


Total Seats: 1,259

And let's say we want a United Commonwealth that includes the UK, the Commonwealth realms, and the Republic of Ireland? It looks like this:
United Kingdom: 564 seats
Canada: 312 seats
Australia: 208 seats
Papua New Guinea: 65 seats
R. of Ireland: 40 seats
New Zealand: 40 seats
Jamaica: 24 seats
Solomon Islands : 5 seats
Bahamas: 3 seats
Belize: 3 seats
Barbados: 3 seats
Saint Lucia : 2 seats
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: 1 seat
Grenada: 1 seat
Antigua and Barbuda: 1 seat
Saint Kitts and Nevis: 1 seat
Tuvalu: 1 seat
1,274 total seats
 
Last edited:
Top