Challange: Greater Brittian, or TransAtlanticism !Hurrauh!

[DuQuense]

Following the end of the WW2 the British Empire went in to a steep decline.
A large part of this was due to Britain no longer having the necessary population and resources, to compete, on the scale needed in the post War world.

Whe have had several threads here about no US revolution/US loses etc.
Most have the consensus that with with the American population and territory, the center of power would End in America.

Canada OTOH while it has a lot of territory, only has ~half the population, of Britain.

So can whe come up with a TL that between 1790 [US formed} and 1910 has Great Britain Merging with Canada into One Nation. Greater Brittian

 

[Sir Isaac Brock]

Following the end of the WW2 the British Empire went in to a steep decline.
A large part of this was due to Britain no longer having the necessary population and resources, to compete, on the scale needed in the post War world.

Whe have had several threads here about no US revolution/US loses etc.
Most have the consensus that with with the American population and territory, the center of power would End in America.

Canada OTOH while it has a lot of territory, only has ~half the population, of Britain.

So can whe come up with a TL that between 1790 [US formed} and 1910 has Great Britain Merging with Canada into One Nation. Greater Brittian

ASB

The idea of a Federal Empire died in the 1910s, and wasn't even that popular then.

Canada had been agitating for more independence from Britain since 1837.

Canadians are commited Federalists (by and large), Brits fear the very idea.

Meanwhle Britain did want to be equal partners with anyone. The memories of imperial glory were too strong. See the initial snubbing of the ECC.

Canada also had a different and seperate political culture by 1945. See the French Fact, continentalism, anti-Imperialism (e.g. Suez), etc.

 

[Tyr]

Not even remotely ASB.

I think there are a few tls where this happens. I know I've got one.

 

[Darkling]

The idea of a Federal Empire died in the 1910s, and wasn't even that popular then.

In OTL and the OP posits the formation of this union before 1910 anyway so it doesn't really matter if post 1910 is too late.

Canadians are commited Federalists (by and large), Brits fear the very idea.

No they don't, they just think that a unitary state makes more sense rather than dividing up the country.

With that said Home Rule (all round) was pushed before the war (it was part of Labours official policy stance upon formation and was also a Liberal position).

Meanwhle Britain did want to be equal partners with anyone. The memories of imperial glory were too strong. See the initial snubbing of the ECC.

It wouldn't need to be an equal partnership or even partnership any more than modern Britain is a partnership between Cheshire and Devon.

Canada also had a different and seperate political culture by 1945. See the French Fact, continentalism, anti-Imperialism (e.g. Suez), etc.

Which is 35 years after the latest date for he merging given in the OP and thus completely irrelevant.

 

[Darkling]

I think the key is to get Britain to be forced to keep protecting Canada instead of handing it off to the Canadians (more or less), have the US be more threatening (but not strong enough to make Canada an automatic loss) and then somebody decides that Canada should contribute to the Imperial defence and keep trade tariffs down to justify British expense on Canadian defence.

Of course the Canadians have to have some say in those polices in return and hey presto.

 

[Sir Isaac Brock]

In OTL and the OP posits the formation of this union before 1910 anyway so it doesn't really matter if post 1910 is too late.

Okay now that I've carefully re-read the first post, I can see I was wrong.

I wrongly read the first sentence to indicate a post-1945 POD, which isn't the case at all.

Pre-1910 is a whole lot easier. Not a shoe-in. But easier.

No they don't, they just think that a unitary state makes more sense rather than dividing up the country.

Are you thinking that a cross-Atlantic unitary state would work too?

With that said Home Rule (all round) was pushed before the war (it was part of Labours official policy stance upon formation and was also a Liberal position).

Wait. Home Rule for whom? Which war?

It wouldn't need to be an equal partnership or even partnership any more than modern Britain is a partnership between Cheshire and Devon.

But it is most certainly the result of a partnership between England and Scotland. In either case, the logistics of a trans-Atlantic nation seem to point the direction of federalism, non?

Which is 35 years after the latest date for he merging given in the OP and thus completely irrelevant.

As I see now.

 

[Darkling]

Are you thinking that a cross-Atlantic unitary state would work too?

Not likely although conceivably possible once the necessary communictaion and transport technology exists.

However such a state would most likely be federal in nature (although possibly an unequal one at first such as the current arrangement with Scotland and Northern Ireland), it is worth noting that the proposals for Malta's integration to the UK (the only attempt to make a colony part of the UK) was along these lines.

Wait. Home Rule for whom? Which war?

ww1.

Home rule for Ireland, England and Scotland (possibly Wales, which at the time was regarded as part of England) with a Imperial parliament in Westminster.

In other words a federal United Kingdom, which was known as the Home Rule all round movement/idea (all round, because it wasn't just for Ireland).

But it is most certainly the result of a partnership between England and Scotland.

Ah but not an equal partnership between England and Scotland (although Scotland was over represented until recently).

I would also question whether it was a partnership at all since the two countries weren't partners rather than part of a whole, I would consider the EU as a partnership for example but not the US (although it started out that way) but that just seems like a small semantic difference.

In either case, the logistics of a trans-Atlantic nation seem to point the direction of federalism, non?

Yes although not necessarily going the whole hog at first, we could just see a few Canadians there to speak for them on defence/trade/foreign policy matters and then a proper Imperial parliament being merged with home rule at some later date.

 

[DuQuense]

?What if back in the 1790's following the ACW Britian in an attempt to prevent another US separation, began accepting MP's from the Canadian Provinces?

 

[stevep]

Possibly the easiest way would be to have the US lose the 1812 conflict and the NW provinces west of Ohio returned to Canada. This gives the Canadian more potential power in the longer run as the Great Lakes area is developed. Also you have a resentful US which possibly leads to later conflicts or at least periods of great tension.

This would result in much greater British interest in Canada rather than neglecting it. US hostility would mean that population and finances that Britain sent to America goes to Canada instead and similarly there is not the steady flow of people from Canada to the US, or at least nothing like the same degree. As such Canada is strengthened and the US weakened by the transfer of resources.

The Canadians will need British support but will also want political power and at least influence in their economic development, especially as their population grows. The British will want some payback for the large amounts they are paying to defend Canada. Both will feel a stronger sense of brotherhood and common interests. As such some sort of political union, or at least federation could quite well occur.

Steve