'Overseas Counties'?

Anyway I'd like to know what your thoughts on a small portion of the British Empire being kept. Obviously I know we have a few odd things dotted everywhere but is there any other way?

For example France has French Guiana which is a 'region' (an overseas region though.) This seems to be going reasonably well for France, so could the same thing be done with Britain? Could we unite any large-ish portions of the Empire to have 'overseas counties' or something like the French system. I know there's Malta in 1955 with a possible union but what about other territories? Could you maybe integrate the Falklands like that?

I just want to say that I don't want a Brit-Wank btw. I'm just asking how could the 'British Empire' stay around like the French system of 'regions'. Nothing huge or major.
 
Last edited:
About Malta, I doubt it. Unless you have a PoD very early on, Malta cannot (democratically) remain in the British Empire.
 
You might want to clarify your question a little.

If your questions is pretty much what can we keep as part of the UK, ruled by Westminster as part of the UK, like Scotland/NI/England, rather than a separate entity then I think the answer is probably very little. I base this on how they deal with other possessions -all the weird little bits like the Channel Islands/Man and residual bits like Gibralter all have either functional independence, under shared sovereign, or are self governing.

You would need some sort of change that made the central government more of a centraliser/administrative reformer. If you could get this to occur early enough, then perhaps this would create a precedent. So perhaps have some sort of odd crisis in one of the islands, back before the War. Then use that as an excuse to impose substantial reform that incorporates them properly into the UK. Then during decolonisation or otherwise perhaps this example could be followed
 
Wiki begs to differ.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/wiki/February_14

The idea was NOT popular in Malta. In fact, when the while integration thing came up, some even suggested integration with Italy as an alternative!

Maybe my math is off or I am misinterpreting the sentence, but from what you are posting it basically says:

- A referendum was held in which 60% of the electorate turned out (that kind of turnout is higher than in a number of general elections and referenda in some countries and in those cases those referenda/elections are considered entirely legit...)

- 40% of the electorate boycotted the referendum.

- Out of the majority of the electorate that did turn up to vote, a majority of those (75%) voted "Yes" to integration with the UK. Thus out of the entire electorate 45% voted "Yes", 15% voted "No" and 40% didn't vote.

So how is that the idea was not popular if nearly half of the electorate said "yes" to it?
 
Maybe my math is off or I am misinterpreting the sentence, but from what you are posting it basically says:

- A referendum was held in which 60% of the electorate turned out (that kind of turnout is higher than in a number of general elections and referenda in some countries and in those cases those referenda/elections are considered entirely legit...)

- 40% of the electorate boycotted the referendum.

- Out of the majority of the electorate that did turn up to vote, a majority of those (75%) voted "Yes" to integration with the UK. Thus out of the entire electorate 45% voted "Yes", 15% voted "No" and 40% didn't vote.

So how is that the idea was not popular if nearly half of the electorate said "yes" to it?
It was indeed actively boycotted by the Nationalists, as well as the church, but that isnt to say other people didnt go to vote either. My opinion is that only the people who actually wanted to integrate (basically Labour and a few other cronies) and some few people who for some reason didint join the boycott but instead voted no, actually bothered to vote. Im guessing that quite a large percentage just didnt vote at all. The Nationalists and Church were probably scared that the YES vote would win, but they neednt have worried.
I can also guess that the people who voted NO could be the (about roughly 14% IIRC) ones who wanted integration with Italy instead. The ones who were indifferent simply didnt boycott nor vote.

But, that idea is just my opinion. Since they are hardly many online resources about the vote, we cant know for sure, but the whole idea of integration wasnt a popular one among your average Maltese.
 
Okay, let us go through this again carefully because I must have missed something.

So:

It was indeed actively boycotted by the Nationalists, as well as the church, but that isnt to say other people didnt go to vote either.

the nationalists and church boycott should be the same 40% referred to in this post right?


Jimbrock said:
Quote:
14 February1956: A referendum is held on the integration of Malta into the United Kingdom: 75% vote 'Yes'; however, the result is deemed to be questionable due to a boycott by 40% of the electorate in response to concerns raised by opposition parties and by the Roman Catholic Church.[18]


Jimbrock said:
My opinion is that only the people who actually wanted to integrate (basically Labour and a few other cronies) and some few people who for some reason didint join the boycott but instead voted no, actually bothered to vote.

Not hard to guess one's views here. Also note that opinions don't mean anything when dealing with numbers. Whether or not you, I, Mac, Susano, etc have an opinion about the how many people actually voted it won't change the numbers. And the numbers say that 40% of the electorate boycotted. Therefore around 60% of the electorate must have voted unless the 40% figure you provided from wikipedia is wrong.

Im guessing that quite a large percentage just didnt vote at all.

No need to guess, 40% is a large percentage. You are on the mark there.

The Nationalists and Church were probably scared that the YES vote would win, but they neednt have worried.

True since the 40% boycott probably kept the result before some minimum threshold (it is possible that there may have been a requirement on the minimum turnout for it to be valid and how much must vote in favour depending on the turnout).


I can also guess that the people who voted NO could be the (about roughly 14% IIRC) ones who wanted integration with Italy instead.

Well if 45% of the electorate said yes to integrating with the UK and 14% in polls before or around that time favoured integrating with Italy then integration with the UK was way more popular than integrating with Italy. Approximately three times more popular in fact.

The ones who were indifferent simply didnt boycott nor vote.

There is actually no way to know how many actively boycotted as opposed to just not bothering to vote because the result is the same: people staying away from the polling booth. So for this discussion, it doesn't really matter how many boycotted and how many couldn't be bothered since that is something we will never know unless there was a poll taken of those who stayed home to find out.

But, that idea is just my opinion. Since they are hardly many online resources about the vote, we cant know for sure, but the whole idea of integration wasnt a popular one among your average Maltese.

Well your wikiquote provided plenty enough information as it is to suggest that the idea of integration was at least popular among 45% of the electorate. That counts as "popular" since it is widespread. Just as how statehood and continued commonwealth status are both popular in Puerto Rico.

Besides a quick search for "Malta 1956 referendum" returned this nice page which has results for all of Malta's referenda since 1870:

http://www.maltadata.com/ref-votes.htm

Here is what it has on the 1956 referendum (which confirms what you originally posted anyway and what we could deduce using math):

(2) The Integration Referendum of 1956
(February 11 and 12)


The Question: [The text below is taken from J. Pirotta's book. It is not clear, after searching books and making inquiries, whether the whole text below was presented to the voters or whether there was an abbreviated question on the ballot paper.]

PROPOSALS SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT THE REFERENDUM HELD ON 11 AND 12 FEBRUARY 1956

The underlying principle of the Malta Labour Government's proposals for closer association with Great Britain on which negotiations will be conducted with Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, is a complete equality of status between the two peoples. The proposals embody the following basic features:

I. - CONSTITUTIONAL

1. Malta would have representation with full voting powers in the Parliament at Westminster, elected in the same way as Members in the United Kingdom.

2. The Parliament at Westminster would have exclusive authority in matters of defence and foreign affairs, and at an appropriate future date, direct taxation.

3. The powers of the Maltese Parliament would be extended and would embrace all matters other than those mentioned in paragraph 2 above. The Maltese Parliament would be responsible for legislation in all internal matters including, in particular, those affecting the position of the Church in these Islands, education, marriage and family life, always acknowledging the principle of religious toleration as embodied in the Declaration of Rights of 1802 and in recent Constitutions. This would mean that the new constitutional relationship would leave intact the power of the people of Malta to protect their own religion and their own Ecclesiastical establishment. Her Majesty's Government would confirm the assurances they have already given in regard to religious matters,

4. The present dyarchical system of Government in Malta would be abolished and there would be a representative of Her Majesty's Government in Malta to carry out the policy of that Government in regard to defence and foreign affairs, and to consult and collaborate with the Maltese Government in matters of joint concern.

II - ECONOMIC

Under the new constitutional relationship between the two peoples, agreements covering a number of years for financial and other assistance would be sought with Her Majesty's Government to support a development plan the objective of which would be equivalence of standards with Great Britain:-

a) by the gradual raising of the standard of living of the people of these Island and in particular of their social services;

(b) by maintaining employment, the increase of opportunities outside Service establishments and the gradual raising of wages;

(c) by raising direct taxation as the national income and the taxable capacity of the people increase.

III - CONSULTATIVE

Machinery for close consultation and collaboration between the two Governments would be established on the following lines:

(a) A Defence Council in Malta, of which the Maltese Prime Minister would be a member. The Council would be used to inform the Maltese Government of developments in defence and foreign affairs and for the discussion of these matters in so far as they affect Malta;

(b) A committee in Malta, composed of representatives of the Maltese Government and Her Majesty's Government, for the consideration of economic and financial matters of common concern;

(c) A Joint Standing Ministerial Committee in London, to consider at the highest level any issue of particular importance or difficulty affecting Malta. This Committee would meet regularly to provide a means of consultation and an exchange of information between the two Governments.



The Result:

+---------------------------+-----------+--------------------+
|---------------------------| % of-------| % of-----% of-----|
|---------------------------|Registered--| Votes-----Valid----|
|---------------------------| Voters-----| Cast-----Votes----|
+---------------------------+-----------+--------------------+
| Registered Voters 152,783-| 100.00-----|--------------------|
| Not Voting* 62,440--------| 40.87------|--------------------|
| Votes Cast 90,343---------| 59.13 -----|100.00------------- |
| Invalid Votes 2,559--------| 1.67 ------| 2.83--------------- |
| Valid Votes 87,784---------| 57.46-----| 97.17----100.00----|
+---------------------------+-----------+--------------------+
| In Favor 67,607------------| 44.25-----| 74.83----77.02-----|
| Against 20,177 ------------| 13.21-----| 22.21----22.98-----|
+---------------------------+-----------+--------------------+
* of these 3,287 did not obtain voting papers
 
Okay, let us go through this again carefully because I must have missed something.

So:



the nationalists and church boycott should be the same 40% referred to in this post right?







Not hard to guess one's views here. Also note that opinions don't mean anything when dealing with numbers. Whether or not you, I, Mac, Susano, etc have an opinion about the how many people actually voted it won't change the numbers. And the numbers say that 40% of the electorate boycotted. Therefore around 60% of the electorate must have voted unless the 40% figure you provided from wikipedia is wrong.



No need to guess, 40% is a large percentage. You are on the mark there.



True since the 40% boycott probably kept the result before some minimum threshold (it is possible that there may have been a requirement on the minimum turnout for it to be valid and how much must vote in favour depending on the turnout).




Well if 45% of the electorate said yes to integrating with the UK and 14% in polls before or around that time favoured integrating with Italy then integration with the UK was way more popular than integrating with Italy. Approximately three times more popular in fact.



There is actually no way to know how many actively boycotted as opposed to just not bothering to vote because the result is the same: people staying away from the polling booth. So for this discussion, it doesn't really matter how many boycotted and how many couldn't be bothered since that is something we will never know unless there was a poll taken of those who stayed home to find out.



Well your wikiquote provided plenty enough information as it is to suggest that the idea of integration was at least popular among 45% of the electorate. That counts as "popular" since it is widespread. Just as how statehood and continued commonwealth status are both popular in Puerto Rico.

Besides a quick search for "Malta 1956 referendum" returned this nice page which has results for all of Malta's referenda since 1870:

http://www.maltadata.com/ref-votes.htm

Here is what it has on the 1956 referendum (which confirms what you originally posted anyway and what we could deduce using math):

I guess it depends on how we interpret the word 'boycott'. I consider it to be active opposition, distributing leaflets, advertising, etc. but it is understandable that 'boycott' can come to mean simply not voting.
Well, you cant argue with the numbers there. It could have been that my opinion is simply biased (very possible, in the context of Maltese politics) but I somehow cant fathom how so many people agreed with the Integration. AFAIK it was always an unpopular idea, but i guess people change their opinions when they are in the ballot cubicle.

Still, 40% voting for integration means that more than half disliked the idea, and doesnt that make it unpopular?:confused:
 
I guess it depends on how we interpret the word 'boycott'. I consider it to be active opposition, distributing leaflets, advertising, etc. but it is understandable that 'boycott' can come to mean simply not voting.

Well boycotting can include active opposition, but active opposition doesn't change the end result which is the actual boycott itself - One can only boycott a poll by not taking part for which one would have to refrain from voting.

Well, you cant argue with the numbers there. It could have been that my opinion is simply biased (very possible, in the context of Maltese politics) but I somehow cant fathom how so many people agreed with the Integration. AFAIK it was always an unpopular idea, but i guess people change their opinions when they are in the ballot cubicle.

Still, 40% voting for integration means that more than half disliked the idea, and doesnt that make it unpopular?:confused:

Two competing ideas can be popular at the same time. In Puerto Rico statehood usually receives about 35-45% of the vote in various referenda between 1967 and 1998. The Commonwealth (territorial) option received about 50-60%. Both ideas are popular, one is just more popular than the other. The unpopular idea is definitely straight out independence with no special links to the USA (that only ever receives 0.5-12% of the vote in referenda and opinion polls since 1967).

Obviously in Malta it was popular as basically 45 out of every 100 voters you would have met in 1956 would have agreed with becoming a direct part of the UK, but it was never popular enough such that the idea got carried out. Even then if 40% of the electorate had not boycotted the polls then who knows what may have happened. At that point all one would need is about 10,700 people out of the 62,400 who didn't vote for integration to have received 51% of the total vote. Who knows how many people might have liked the idea of integration (or at least been willing to go with Labour's position even though they didn't really have an opinion one way or the other about independence or integration) but didn't vote due to the boycott of the Catholic Church?

Also it could be that had all the options been laid out in the referendum, i.e. integration with Britain, integration with Italy, continued colonial status or independence then none of them may have received a majority (if British integration got 44% and integration with Italy got say 14-16% as you say seems to have been the case in polls then at most 42% of the vote would be left to be divided between the final two options of which I expect continued colonial status would receive the least).

The really big question is how many people would have not bothered to vote anyway even without calls for a boycott. Their opinions could have made a difference and their absence would certainly make a difference since if say 10,000 people just didn't bother to turn out for the vote (without calls for a boycott) then the numbers could have looked like this:

Registered voters - 152,783
Not voting - 10,000 (6.5% of the registered voters)
Voting - 142,783 (93.5% of registered voters)
Valid votes - 140224 (91.7% of registered voters) - we assume no more invalid votes than in OTL
In favour - 67,607 (44.6% of registered voters)
Against - 72,617 (47.5% of registered voters)

So integration would have lost 48.3% to 51.7%.

If the number not bothering was doubled to 20,000 however, then integration would have won 67,607 to 62,617 or 51.9% to 48.1% with an 86% turnout (a higher turnout than occurred for the independence referendum in 1964 where over 30,000 didn't bother to turnout to vote although the number of voters had only increased by 10,000 since 1956).
 
Well boycotting can include active opposition, but active opposition doesn't change the end result which is the actual boycott itself - One can only boycott a poll by not taking part for which one would have to refrain from voting.



Two competing ideas can be popular at the same time. In Puerto Rico statehood usually receives about 35-45% of the vote in various referenda between 1967 and 1998. The Commonwealth (territorial) option received about 50-60%. Both ideas are popular, one is just more popular than the other. The unpopular idea is definitely straight out independence with no special links to the USA (that only ever receives 0.5-12% of the vote in referenda and opinion polls since 1967).

Obviously in Malta it was popular as basically 45 out of every 100 voters you would have met in 1956 would have agreed with becoming a direct part of the UK, but it was never popular enough such that the idea got carried out. Even then if 40% of the electorate had not boycotted the polls then who knows what may have happened. At that point all one would need is about 10,700 people out of the 62,400 who didn't vote for integration to have received 51% of the total vote. Who knows how many people might have liked the idea of integration (or at least been willing to go with Labour's position even though they didn't really have an opinion one way or the other about independence or integration) but didn't vote due to the boycott of the Catholic Church?

Also it could be that had all the options been laid out in the referendum, i.e. integration with Britain, integration with Italy, continued colonial status or independence then none of them may have received a majority (if British integration got 44% and integration with Italy got say 14-16% as you say seems to have been the case in polls then at most 42% of the vote would be left to be divided between the final two options of which I expect continued colonial status would receive the least).

The really big question is how many people would have not bothered to vote anyway even without calls for a boycott. Their opinions could have made a difference and their absence would certainly make a difference since if say 10,000 people just didn't bother to turn out for the vote (without calls for a boycott) then the numbers could have looked like this:

Registered voters - 152,783
Not voting - 10,000 (6.5% of the registered voters)
Voting - 142,783 (93.5% of registered voters)
Valid votes - 140224 (91.7% of registered voters) - we assume no more invalid votes than in OTL
In favour - 67,607 (44.6% of registered voters)
Against - 72,617 (47.5% of registered voters)

So integration would have lost 48.3% to 51.7%.

If the number not bothering was doubled to 20,000 however, then integration would have won 67,607 to 62,617 or 51.9% to 48.1% with an 86% turnout (a higher turnout than occurred for the independence referendum in 1964 where over 30,000 didn't bother to turnout to vote although the number of voters had only increased by 10,000 since 1956).
Well, integration with the UK was the last thing the pro-Italian Nationalists and Church wanted. It could have been a wise move then for a sort of many-optioned referendum to be held, with options for integration with the UK, with Italy, independence, and continued colonial status. Obviously the most popular ones would be integration with the UK and independence, but who knows which one could have won?
 
Well, integration with the UK was the last thing the pro-Italian Nationalists and Church wanted. It could have been a wise move then for a sort of many-optioned referendum to be held, with options for integration with the UK, with Italy, independence, and continued colonial status. Obviously the most popular ones would be integration with the UK and independence, but who knows which one could have won?

Well it would all depend on voter apathy really. If 10,000 didn't bother to turn up then independence may have won. If 20,000 didn't turn up then integration with the UK may have won. The independence referendum from that site I gave a link to indicates that about 55,000 voted against independence in 1964 (a good third of the registered votes and 40-45% of those who bothered to vote). This is similar to the amount of the people who voted for integration back in 1956 although doubtlessly some opinions had changed between 1956 and 1964.

An unexpected side effect of all of this is that Malta would have entered the EEC/EU much earlier if integration with the UK had won.....
 
Top