What if Malta was integrated into the UK?

The UK felt obligated to retake the Falkland islands after Argentina invaded it, Hong Kongers would have requested the same. At this point would the UK have told China to go and stick it to protect democracy, civil rights, human rights etc?

Chinese tanks would reach the far side of Hong Kong before the RN had passed Land's End and that's if we somehow ended up with a government stupid enough to get us into a shooting war with a nuclear power over a territory we can't maintain without support from the same power...
 
The only way I could see this affecting any other colony would be Hong Kong and still the UK could have used it their advantage to keep just two vital parts of many within its collapsing empire.
As others have said vote or no vote the Chinese government is still going to demand the New Territories back when the 99-year lease expires and without them the rest of the colony wasn't viable. The only way I could see Hong Kong remaining separate from China would be to somehow either extend the lease or turn it into a permanent cession - best I can think of is the 1909 proposal by the governor Sir Frederick Lugard to swap Weihaiwei back to China in return for permanently ceding the New Territories, and perhaps most favoured nation status for the Hong Kong itself. Even then the Chinese are still going to be annoyed by Hong Kong and see it arising out of the unequal treaties.


If the UK were deny China Hong Kong would China go to war with UK in the end? It's one thing talking about war (threaten and intimidation) but it's another thing to actually go and do it. (the last resort). If war did take place would their be any negative effects for China?
If this is post-1997 then the UK will be undeniably in the wrong if they try and keep the New Territories after the lease expires, legally they simply don't have a leg to stand on. If they did try all it takes is for the Chinese government to bus in say ten or twenty thousand civilians to the land border and tell them to walk into the New Territories since after midnight it's now a part of the People's Republic. Are the British really going to resort to very publicly gunning down tens of thousand of men, women and children to retain a territory which they have no legal entitlement to? They would, quite rightly, be crucified and become an international pariah.
 
Hong Kong is a non starter from The beginning of this thread! However the idea of Malta joining the uk is an interesting one. With this example I think
That Gibraltar is a good prospect for territory n2 The dial back of the Royal Navy post suez could be reversed by an earlier fall of Libya to revolutionary semi communist forces aka gaddaffi time? With subsidies/ support from USA he naval facilities could be maintained or expanded? So then he boycott would not have happened so the percentage would be over 60. Gibraltar would as long as it was before Post Franco for integration into the UK. Then several smaller territories in the carribean would be next etc
 
With regards to Gibraltar what does the Treaty of Utrecht say? I was under the impression that one of the reasons that it hadn't already become independent was that the treaty stipulated that the territory had to be offered back to Spain before it was allowed to become independent or be transferred to another state.
 

Devvy

Donor
With regards to Gibraltar what does the Treaty of Utrecht say? I was under the impression that one of the reasons that it hadn't already become independent was that the treaty stipulated that the territory had to be offered back to Spain before it was allowed to become independent or be transferred to another state.

Article X:
The Catholic King does hereby, for himself, his heirs and successors, yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging; and he gives up the said propriety to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever.
<snip>
And in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant , sell or by any means to alienate therefrom the propriety of the said town of Gibraltar, it is hereby agreed and concluded that the preference of having the sale shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others.


So if GB/UK want to transfer/sell Gibraltar, it must offer first refusal to Spain. For independence; technically it's not being transferred/sold to anyone, so it could probably be done, in the face of Spanish protests. On the other hand, if it becomes actually independent, what's to stop Spain just annexing it?

As for merging it in to the UK "proper" - I think that's perfectly allowed under the treaty; whether it's a overseas territory or part of the UK, it's still under the authority of the British Crown.
 
I apologize for repeating the Hong Kong scenario, it's an intriguing situation to this very day in international diplomacy with all the recent protests. I was considering another angle from all the other angles that were already considered. Like they say you can never leave a stone unturned.
 
Last edited:
Just for clarification, intrigue or to gain more knowledge, you mentioned in one of your posts about "power and other utilities" and why Hong Kong would have not been unsustainable for the UK. Expand and elaborate on this for the understanding of why it is impossible to hold on it. (e.g. to far away, Hong Kong is not big enough, the UK is not superiorly stronger than China)
It's too far away, the UK would struggle to support Hong Kong logistically particularly in the face of a hostile Chinese since all of Hong Kong's power stations are in the New Territories and most of its water is imported from China.

As for defending Hong Kong, I don't think the island even has an airstrip, so it'd be completely vulnerable to Chinese air strikes.

On top of that this would be a long-term commitment that would drain resources from countering the potentially existential threat for the UK of the Soviet Union.
 
Last edited:
and during the referendum too it seems

Was he that anti integration in 56 though? I don't know anything about his views

From one little I've read today it seems he was pro integration but the integration was going to leave Malta as effectively self governing but with a couple of British MPs in Westminster.

The Maltese Labour party ran a 'integration or independence' platform- I believe in this case Mintoff supported the deal as offered, but felt that if Malta had rejected integration with Britain they should be fully independent rather than attempting to maintain a semi-colonial relationship with Britain.

As for this scenario, certainly the possibility of earlier Home Rule for Scotland seems plausible, as does Gibraltar integrating. Hong Kong is well out for all the reasons discussed above.

The really interesting thing is the effects in Caribbean- Anguilla and Barbuda both attempted to remain with Britain (the former successfully) rather than get incorporated into St Kitts and Nevis and Antigua and Barbuda respectively, and it seems logical that they might well seek integration as a conclusion of that. Equally I can see some of the BOTs seeking full integration- the Falklands perhaps- or becoming integrated by default with cases such as Montserrat or the Turks and Caicos islands where direct rule had to be asserted.
 
I have been reading stuff today. There was much discussion about whether to put responsibility for Malta under the Home Office, somewhere else or remain with the Colonial Office. Clearly the latter would be an insult
 
Would a full scale integration of overseas territories too small to want to gun for independence and cases such as Malta necessitate a change in the name of the UK?
They may not be a huge population boost, but it would still be hundreds of thousands of new British citizens who reside neither in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, yet are a direct part of the state.
What was the language policy of the British government in the time frame?
 
Would a full scale integration of overseas territories too small to want to gun for independence and cases such as Malta necessitate a change in the name of the UK?
They may not be a huge population boost, but it would still be hundreds of thousands of new British citizens who reside neither in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, yet are a direct part of the state.
What was the language policy of the British government in the time frame?


I doubt it, not least because 'United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and her overseas dependencies' is rather unwieldy.
 
Any body got any ideas about guyana staying in the UK. It is said that the country will become no more one day, everybody is emigrating to the US due to it's severe poverty.
 
Last edited:
Top