With the upcoming referendum in the UK on EU membership, some attention has been turned to the fact that Gibraltar will also be voting for it is also in the EU despite being an overseas territory. Some have suggested this may pave the way for Gibraltar to eventually gain representation at Westminster. But what if this was already the case, not only with Gibraltar and the other territories that currently exist, but also with Britain's last large overseas possession-- Hong Kong?
Now, in OTL, the smallest constituency, in terms of population, has for long been the seat for the Outer Hebrides- with 22,000-odd voters, it is far smaller than the average 60-70,000 per constituency. This seems like a reasonable test for determining which territories are large enough to merit representation; by this standard, Bermuda, the Caymans, the Turks and Caicos, Gibraltar, and the Virgin Islands would all have one seat today, and probably in 1978 as well.
But what about Hong Kong? Let us assume that the New Territories were one way or another permanently ceded to the British, and that for whatever reason the PRC never bothers challenging this, and that HK (for now) remains British in perpetuity. So what effect, if parliamentary representation was implemented starting in, say, 1978, would this have on the British political landscape?
How many seats would they have at Westminster?
With some guesswork as to the size of the would-be electorate in Hong Kong as of 1978- around 3.06 million- and the average voters per constituency given above, we get anywhere between 40 to 50 extra seats. If we went with 40 seats, and assuming an OTL rate of growth, there would be around 50 seats today: a 700-member House. How would these Hong Kongers vote, in the absence of a pro-Democrat/pro-Beijing political divide, and what effect would these extra 40-50 seats have? (You could also ask how the other 5 MPs for the other territories would change things.)
Now, in OTL, the smallest constituency, in terms of population, has for long been the seat for the Outer Hebrides- with 22,000-odd voters, it is far smaller than the average 60-70,000 per constituency. This seems like a reasonable test for determining which territories are large enough to merit representation; by this standard, Bermuda, the Caymans, the Turks and Caicos, Gibraltar, and the Virgin Islands would all have one seat today, and probably in 1978 as well.
But what about Hong Kong? Let us assume that the New Territories were one way or another permanently ceded to the British, and that for whatever reason the PRC never bothers challenging this, and that HK (for now) remains British in perpetuity. So what effect, if parliamentary representation was implemented starting in, say, 1978, would this have on the British political landscape?
How many seats would they have at Westminster?
With some guesswork as to the size of the would-be electorate in Hong Kong as of 1978- around 3.06 million- and the average voters per constituency given above, we get anywhere between 40 to 50 extra seats. If we went with 40 seats, and assuming an OTL rate of growth, there would be around 50 seats today: a 700-member House. How would these Hong Kongers vote, in the absence of a pro-Democrat/pro-Beijing political divide, and what effect would these extra 40-50 seats have? (You could also ask how the other 5 MPs for the other territories would change things.)