WI Britain after WW2 followed the French?

Integrating some places like St Lucia, Mauritius and the like is certainly doable and should have been done as a matter of fact. However this will have its own cost in order to bring the territories on par with mainland Britain.

The idea also does not mixes well at all with a generous welfare state for cost of life reasons. A universal dole benefit of way £10 a week in the UK might not be a lot, but it will be a fortune in British Jamaïca and British Antigua. The single biggest source of income of these islands will therefore come from welfare payments and other subsidies, effectively making them unproductive and money holes for the Treasury.
This is for information the EXACT current situation in French owned Guadaloupe and Martinique.
 
Well the most obvious place to start is Malta - the locals were actually opposed to independence which practically forced on them by Wesminster.

After that you're looking at Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands but they carry heavy political baggage.

Really the best bet is to have an intermediary stage to allow islands and former possessions to rise to UK levels before fully integrating them. Many of the French overseas provinces as mentioned are money holes based on the prestige focues Grandeur policy.

Jamaica I just can't see happening however - best bet is to try and make the West Indian Federation work for the larger islands.
 
Well the most obvious place to start is Malta - the locals were actually opposed to independence which practically forced on them by Wesminster.

After that you're looking at Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands but they carry heavy political baggage.

Really the best bet is to have an intermediary stage to allow islands and former possessions to rise to UK levels before fully integrating them. Many of the French overseas provinces as mentioned are money holes based on the prestige focues Grandeur policy.

Jamaica I just can't see happening however - best bet is to try and make the West Indian Federation work for the larger islands.

Malta is a good place to start indeed but the island will have to develop better economic prospects that just surviving off the Royal Navy base. Tourism could be one and as could others and this will be a matter for both the local Maltese government and for the British government to solve toghether hand in hand.

For other places I would say that a system should be in place so that the level of welfare benefits is proportional to the general living standards of the place. In effect the national unemployment benefit/minimum wage would be lower in places like Mauritius compared with mainland Britain. This could help in moving some manpower intensive industries over to the overseas territories and create jobs and wealth in the process. This will also encourage more immigration to mainland Britain and lessen unemployment and social problems in the overseas territories.

Another way to help the territories could simply be to give them their own currency and to let it float. This would again allow for the differences in living standards to be properly adjusted. In due time this currency could be reintegrated into the British pound, once the level of economic development is on par with Britain.
 

abc123

Banned
Well, Enoch Powell would have agreed but I'm not so sure. I don't think that Britain can really remain neutral - we're not small enough. We're a prime geogrpahical target with a good industrial base and there will simply be too much outside pressure. I think that it's in Britains best interest to be on side, preferably America's.

Russell

Nobody has spoken about neutrality. But what I want to say is that UK isn't and should not be primary fighter against world communism. That's job for the USA.
So, in reality, yes, land based silo ICBMs are more sensitive on attack, but it isn't really great danger of soviet nuclear attack on the UK out of the blue. So land ICBMs could be good enough, and money for Polaris can be more wisely spent.
;)
 

abc123

Banned
Integrating some places like St Lucia, Mauritius and the like is certainly doable and should have been done as a matter of fact. However this will have its own cost in order to bring the territories on par with mainland Britain.

The idea also does not mixes well at all with a generous welfare state for cost of life reasons. A universal dole benefit of way £10 a week in the UK might not be a lot, but it will be a fortune in British Jamaïca and British Antigua. The single biggest source of income of these islands will therefore come from welfare payments and other subsidies, effectively making them unproductive and money holes for the Treasury.
This is for information the EXACT current situation in French owned Guadaloupe and Martinique.


Yes, bringing those islands into UK level of living standard is expancive and long process.
Well, integration isn't a must be, just one option, the other option like OTL overseas territories is also good...
 
Nobody has spoken about neutrality. But what I want to say is that UK isn't and should not be primary fighter against world communism. That's job for the USA.
So, in reality, yes, land based silo ICBMs are more sensitive on attack, but it isn't really great danger of soviet nuclear attack on the UK out of the blue. So land ICBMs could be good enough, and money for Polaris can be more wisely spent.
;)

If Britain is so desperate to launch nuclear weapons then it would be against a fellow nuclear armed state, one which would certainly be able to destroy ICBM sites on the ground.

Russell
 

abc123

Banned
If Britain is so desperate to launch nuclear weapons then it would be against a fellow nuclear armed state, one which would certainly be able to destroy ICBM sites on the ground.

Russell

British 100 nukes won't deterr nobody except Argentines, hell it even didn't deter them.
Soviet union can survive 100 british nukes. Britain can't survive 200 soviet nukes. So, or you will have US support that will DESTROY USSR, and then they will do it because own self interest, or you will be destroyed anyway, without destroying USSR.
So, why waste money on weapons that most likely will never be used, and if it ever be used it will most probably have no effect on survival of UK, when you have other things to spend it.
Make no mistake- i'm not for land based ICBMs, better solution is british produced nuclear-tipped cruise missile on Vulcan B.3.
;)
 
British 100 nukes won't deterr nobody except Argentines, hell it even didn't deter them.
Soviet union can survive 100 british nukes. Britain can't survive 200 soviet nukes. So, or you will have US support that will DESTROY USSR, and then they will do it because own self interest, or you will be destroyed anyway, without destroying USSR.
So, why waste money on weapons that most likely will never be used, and if it ever be used it will most probably have no effect on survival of UK, when you have other things to spend it.
Make no mistake- i'm not for land based ICBMs, better solution is british produced nuclear-tipped cruise missile on Vulcan B.3.
;)
The Falklands weren't nuke-worthy, period.
And I wouldn't be so sure about the USSR surviving 100 British nukes, a Russian society surviving, yes, the USSR regime surviving after losing most of its cities and tens of millions of people in half an hour? (okay, if Moscow's ABM shield works as advertised it has a shot, but not in it's pre-nuke state)
 

abc123

Banned
The Falklands weren't nuke-worthy, period.
And I wouldn't be so sure about the USSR surviving 100 British nukes, a Russian society surviving, yes, the USSR regime surviving after losing most of its cities and tens of millions of people in half an hour? (okay, if Moscow's ABM shield works as advertised it has a shot, but not in it's pre-nuke state)


OK, not pre-nuke state, but UK would not survive in any state after 100 nukes...
Anyway, IMHO british deterrence with Vulcan armed with ALCM ( of british origin with about 1500 km range ) should be just about enough for 70s, and after that if would be possible to start build SSBNs for RN.
;)
 
OK, not pre-nuke state, but UK would not survive in any state after 100 nukes...
Anyway, IMHO british deterrence with Vulcan armed with ALCM ( of british origin with about 1500 km range ) should be just about enough for 70s, and after that if would be possible to start build SSBNs for RN.
;)
It wouldn't survive, but only a suicidal regime would accept the cost of nuking a Britain which has a 100 nukes.
 

abc123

Banned
Singapore would be about as hard to integrate as Hong kong, for one.
Jamaica also wanted independence at that point.

And what about giving them ( larger colonies like Malta, Jamaica, Singapore, Mauritius or Trinidad ) position of associated state? So defence and foreign affairs run by London, all else is autonomous? No right of Westminster Parliament to bring laws about them? They would even have the right ho have independent Defence Forces, but with british military bases. And a treaty that they can become dominions/republics, but in that case british bases will become Sovereign Base Areas like in Cyprus?

About Hong Kong, IMO it's best to keep him under crown colony status, because he will one day be returned to China.;)
 

abc123

Banned
And what about giving them ( larger colonies like Malta, Jamaica, Singapore, Mauritius or Trinidad ) position of associated state? So defence and foreign affairs run by London, all else is autonomous? No right of Westminster Parliament to bring laws about them? They would even have the right ho have independent Defence Forces, but with british military bases. And a treaty that they can become dominions/republics, but in that case british bases will become Sovereign Base Areas like in Cyprus?

About Hong Kong, IMO it's best to keep him under crown colony status, because he will one day be returned to China.;)

bump
opinions?
 
And what about giving them ( larger colonies like Malta, Jamaica, Singapore, Mauritius or Trinidad ) position of associated state? So defence and foreign affairs run by London, all else is autonomous? No right of Westminster Parliament to bring laws about them? They would even have the right ho have independent Defence Forces, but with british military bases. And a treaty that they can become dominions/republics, but in that case british bases will become Sovereign Base Areas like in Cyprus?

About Hong Kong, IMO it's best to keep him under crown colony status, because he will one day be returned to China.;)
Those are called protectorates...
 
Top