If Britain Kept its Dominions

The Futurist Manifesto has a federal British Empire, but I consider the date I used (beginning of the 1900s) as almost the last possible one.

There are various problems as discussed but one of the key ones not mentioned is that there wasn't a major leader advocating for it (I use Chamberlain) and there certainly wasn't support for it on the Liberal benches let alone limited support on the Tory side. If you move the party politics around in the late 19th century there is something of an opportunity.

Probably not a Britwank, but a Federal Empire in 1913 would include a citizen population of 65.9 million people with a 1990 dollar GDP of 304.2 billion. In addition the colonies (mostly India) would constitute a further GDP of 257 billion with 380.2 million people.

France: 39.8 million people/138.7 billion.
Germany: 67 million people/244.3 billion.
Austria-Hungary: 50.6 million people/100.5 billion.

So the new British Empire would be roughly comparable to Germany with a higher per capita GDP before colonies. You can see why Chamberlain wanted such a thing if he couldn't have a close Anglo-German Alliance.
 
Why?

Writing as a 21st century Briton I have to ask, why the hell would Britain want to maintain an expensive and pointless empire?

I look forward to an independent England leaving the Union. It is nearly 1,000 years since England had an English king (Edward the Atheling was the last. Harold II if you insist on having had a coronation ceremony.)
 
Writing as a 21st century Briton I have to ask, why the hell would Britain want to maintain an expensive and pointless empire?

Here we don' talk about "Empire",but about a Confederation of UK,Canada,Australia and New Zealand.
A sort of "United Kingdoms of Greater Britain".
The British version of USA.
 
If this is tried after the 1890s, then the results are the Republics of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
 
Writing as a 21st century Briton I have to ask, why the hell would Britain want to maintain an expensive and pointless empire?

I look forward to an independent England leaving the Union. It is nearly 1,000 years since England had an English king (Edward the Atheling was the last. Harold II if you insist on having had a coronation ceremony.)

Because the Saxon royal household didn't originate from Northern Germany?

Russell
 
Perhaps if Gladstone passed Home Rule in 1886 it would lead to Liberal Imperialists to see Imperial Federation/Home Rule as a viable strategy for the White Colonies.
 
I agree with the emerging consensus: the earlier the point of departure, the better chance of some "imperial federation" being viable in the long term.

There was always interest in such a development, of course - right up through the Edwardian period. The Imperial Federation League formed in 1884, and it is telling that it was stronger in the colonies than it was in the mother country. It makes sense, after all, that the colonies would have more to gain from such an arrangement in the earlier stages of development - a greater say in imperial affairs, military policy (and commissions), foreign affairs, trade, and so on. But as the colonies matured into continental/subcontinental dominions, the incentive to federate would shift increasingly to London. Once the settler colonies became dominions, they were increasingly accustomed to their political autonomy, and directed their efforts in colonial conferences to increasing that autonomy.

So it likewise makes sense that the greatest obstacle would be resistance in the British parliament to such a project, since they would be the ones giving up the most in the short term. It would take a real crisis, or extraordinary leadership, to overcome that resistance. Very few Victorian statesmen could foresee a future in which their children and grandchildren would fighting for not just the Empire's survival but the mother country's as well - and needing every ounce of colonial support and resources they could get their hands on.

Such an arrangement would have to be very real, and broadly based if it was to survive. The coalescence of such a widely scattered set of realms would be no easy undertaking, notwithstanding their mutually shared Anglo-Saxon heritage; centrifugal forces would always be a threat. There would have to be a federal parliament with a real democratic component. The dominions would demand more in the way of commissions in the armed forces, basing structure, and a say in how that force was to be used, and that would be especially trenchant with the Pacific Rim dominions as Japanese power matured.

There's a lot else that would have to be considered. It could have all happened...but not without some doing. And it would have to have happened early on.

It makes you wonder how things might have been had British statesmen been willing to consider such a solution in the 1760's and 1770's.
 
upload_2018-2-24_16-6-39.png
 
Why?
In 1890s-1914 The Britsh heritage were very strong in these Dominions.
And? There are plenty of people all over the world who have strong Irish heritage, I can’t imagine you’d find a dozen of them who’d want union of their country with Ireland.

Also from a practical perspective, any potential federation country that is doing well wont want into an arrangement where they have to fund the deadbeats. Any country that is having a hard time would be happy to join a federation but probably won’t be welcome. Unless you can arrange a winning scenario for everyone it seems like it would be hard to get everyone on board for real political and economic integration. Having Britain subsidise the entire endeavour seems like it would need a stronger British economy and/or a different culture in 11 Downing St.
 
Top