WI: Hong Kong (and other British territories) elect Members of Parliament

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.)
 
I think Hong Kong would have taken an awful lot of changes over OTL, just because there was a "Best Before, 1997" stamp across the place. If, as requested, we handwave this problem, then if population growth occurs to the same extent, the 50 or so HK MPs are going to be a powerful force. I assume that there'd be a large amount of powers being devolved, just because of the distances at work, but if we kept our FPTP system, nobody could ignore HK interests of they wanted to command a majority in the Commons.


In addition to the places mentioned in the OP, Malta also seems eminently doable given the right people in Westminster. If I recall correctly, the drive for independence only started because the UK denied them when they asked for integration. According to Wiki, they currently have a population of just under 450,000. Maybe an MP for Gozo & Comino, plus half a dozen for the Main Island?
 
I think Hong Kong would have taken an awful lot of changes over OTL, just because there was a "Best Before, 1997" stamp across the place. If, as requested, we handwave this problem, then if population growth occurs to the same extent, the 50 or so HK MPs are going to be a powerful force. I assume that there'd be a large amount of powers being devolved, just because of the distances at work, but if we kept our FPTP system, nobody could ignore HK interests of they wanted to command a majority in the Commons.


In addition to the places mentioned in the OP, Malta also seems eminently doable given the right people in Westminster. If I recall correctly, the drive for independence only started because the UK denied them when they asked for integration. According to Wiki, they currently have a population of just under 450,000. Maybe an MP for Gozo & Comino, plus half a dozen for the Main Island?

I agree Malta is definitely the right way to begin this, but I think the change in attitude might need to be a bit earlier. Have a Dominion of India act passed in the 30s that creates an actual proper Indian Dominion (though of course things such as a House of Lords equivalent for the Princes could be in there to try and weaken desires for a full break with Britain initially). WWII goes pretty much as OTL but you don't then have the sudden loss of India and with the precedent established an attitude of 'Dominion Status or Integrate' might be able to prevail.

It does get complicated at that point. Malta would probably get 4 seats based on their electorate, and I think an interesting effect of this would be an earlier establishment of devolved governments more widely. Hong Kong might be integrated, but that probably requires a significant change vis a vis China in in the 40s and the establishment of a legislature in Hong Kong earlier on so as to be better able to justify the idea that the population has 'democratically expressed its will not to reunite with China'.
 
One change could be the abolition of some seats of Parliaments to have fewer larger electorates. To prevent overcrowding in the chamber.

Another could be some sort of treaty signed by the Chinese during world war two regarding sovereignty of Hong Kong in return for military aid.
 
This is similar to a thread I posted about a month ago why Britain never integrated its colonies the way France did. The main takeaways were:

(1) That the French, post-revolution, have always had a centralizing, "civilizing" mission that aimed to turn colonial subjects into Frenchmen. Obviously, there was a lot of racism inherent to this; but it did allow for some regions/peoples to become French in a way that was more difficult for Britain.

(2) The British have long relied on ad hoc arrangements in governance. Moreover, centralizing in Great Britain and Ireland itself - and the lack of a regional or provincial tier of governance - made it more of an innovation to integrate colonies as integral parts of the UK.

(3) Having said that, Malta could have set a precedent. In addition, avert WWII, and you'll have a wealthier and stronger Britain that might well seek to integrate overseas territories, including many of the OTL independent West Indies and Pacific territories, into Britain proper. (OTL there was little political will or money to holding onto these territories in the long run.)

I also wonder - and this is a much bigger "what-if" and near-ASB in any timeline similar to OTL - if a Britain that somehow abolished the monarchy after WWII, a new "British Republic," would have sought to end the old imperial relationships, granting independence and integrating the crown dependencies and the British Overseas Territories directly.
 
Assuming that this did occur - it would be intriguing how each of the overseas territories voted/would vote.
 
Assuming that this did occur - it would be intriguing how each of the overseas territories voted/would vote.

Difficult to say. Gibraltar and Malta have historically had a left-wing bent relative to the UK mainstream, but are more socially conservative (Malta especially). Places like the Turks and Caicos and Bermuda would be more conservative. Probably be a lot of Independents though.
 
There would probably be a pretty strong party advocating reunion with China, could see such a party picking up a fair few seats. Not sure if Labour, Conservatives or Lib Dems would really have a presence, could end up being like N.Ireland in that there are instead local parties that work with the national parties.
 
This means that China can't claim back Hong Kong...

Yeah they still will claim the city. Whatever treaty that Britain may sign with the Republic of China is just going to be handwaved aside. Technically, Hong Kong was given to Britain until the end of time following the First Opium War, so another treaty or whatnot is unlikely to change the attitude of the PRC towards Hong Kong.
 

Thande

Donor
Assuming that this did occur - it would be intriguing how each of the overseas territories voted/would vote.

I tend to think they would mostly vote Conservative (even the places with more left-wing political cultures in OTL) just because the Tories have generally been perceived as being the party with a better image on national defence.
 
Assuming that this did occur - it would be intriguing how each of the overseas territories voted/would vote.


Difficult to say. Gibraltar and Malta have historically had a left-wing bent relative to the UK mainstream, but are more socially conservative (Malta especially). Places like the Turks and Caicos and Bermuda would be more conservative. Probably be a lot of Independents though.

The Caribbean territories would be really conservative . As in "jail for gays" conservative. Combined with fear of being swamped by immigrants, but a need for UK subsidies---a Red UKIP could do well here.
 
Last edited:
This is similar to a thread I posted about a month ago why Britain never integrated its colonies the way France did. The main takeaways were:

(1) That the French, post-revolution, have always had a centralizing, "civilizing" mission that aimed to turn colonial subjects into Frenchmen. Obviously, there was a lot of racism inherent to this; but it did allow for some regions/peoples to become French in a way that was more difficult for Britain.

I would have to disagree with you there. New imperialist theories were prevalent all throughout Europe and not just France. It's worth remembering that the WMB was written by an Englishman.

(2) The British have long relied on ad hoc arrangements in governance. Moreover, centralizing in Great Britain and Ireland itself - and the lack of a regional or provincial tier of governance - made it more of an innovation to integrate colonies as integral parts of the UK.

True. After examining colonial office papers, one thing that becomes readily apparent is the remarkable lack of foresight and long term planning. There was never a masterplan and that's ultimatelly why the Empire fell the way it did.

(3) Having said that, Malta could have set a precedent. In addition, avert WWII, and you'll have a wealthier and stronger Britain that might well seek to integrate overseas territories, including many of the OTL independent West Indies and Pacific territories, into Britain proper. (OTL there was little political will or money to holding onto these territories in the long run.)

The reason why I think this is unlikely is that at the end of the day, colonial peoples are still going to be resentful about their material conditions. Especially the ones who've been educated in Britain and have had a chance to compare life in Britain to conditions back home. To avert this there needs to be a sea change in colonial office policy with regards to colonial economic development. Joseph Chamberlain came close to this but he was too much of a neomercantilist. You also have to get the treasury to stop making it so bloody hard for the colonies to secure loans.
 
Top