WI: The Imperial Federation is created

In the late 19th and early 20th Century, as the future of the British Empire became uncertain, there was a proposal from Unionists in the United Kingdom, intended to preserve the British Empire, to create a federal union consisting of the many colonies and dominions established by the British Empire.

It's name: The Imperial Federation.

While a firm plan was never established, the basic idea was that the federation would have a common parliament and would be governed as a superstate. Thus, Imperial unity could be maintained while still allowing for democratic government.

Members of the Old Commonwealth ( England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, for example) were to have their own parliament. Westminster would've become a purely imperial body.

The plan had support among members of the Conservative Party, and the Liberal Party, with the supports seeing only two paths the UK could take in the future: imperial union and continued long-term importance or imperial dissolution and the reduction of the status of the UK to a second-class nation.

As you can imagine, the colonies, represented by Secretary of State for the Colonies Joseph Chamberlain, were not about to give up their sovereignty to be part of this imperialist fantasy, so the plan died a quiet death.

But what if the members of the British Empire decided to give up their sovereignty and become a part of the Imperial Federation?
Edit
 
A realistic way for this to happen is to avoid WWI. The war, at least in New Zealand and Australia, promoted the idea of having a national identity. Major battles like Gallipoli and the Somme meant that NZers and Aussies back home began to feel a sense of national identity rather than just being British which their parents' generation had proudly embodied. I cant really speak for Canada or South Africa because the difference with them is that they have a large proportion of "non-British" citizens (Quebecois in Canada, and Boers, Zulu, Bantu, Coloured, etc in South Africa) so it may be more tricky to add them into it.

However, if the Imperial Federation did manage to come around (as a federation of all the "white" dominions so excluding most African colonies, India, Pacific Islands, etc) I think it would be seen as quite irrelevant until travel and communications became more efficient. Perhaps in the early days it would be seen as more of a European Union-esque confederation rather than an outright federation due to MPs and representatives being literally on the other side of the globe to London.

Something else I wonder about is whether the Australian states and Canadian provinces would be admitted as their own entities rather than as part of Australia or Canada. This way it may be more fair on the smaller members like New Zealand or Newfoundland in terms of representation. Although perhaps this would need the federation to happen in the 19th century before the Australian federation or the expansion of national identities in the early 20th century.
 
In the late 19th and early 20th Century, as the future of the British Empire became uncertain, there was a proposal from Unionists in the United Kingdom, intended to preserve the British Empire, to create a federal union consisting of the many colonies and dominions established by the British Empire.

It's name: The Imperial Federation.

While a firm plan was never established, the basic idea was that the federation would have a common parliament and would be governed as a superstate. Thus, Imperial unity could be maintained while still allowing for democratic government.

Members of the Old Commonwealth ( England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, for example) were to have their own parliament. Westminster would've become a purely imperial body.

The plan had support among members of the Conservative Party, and the Liberal Party, with the supports seeing only two paths the UK could take in the future: imperial union and continued long-term importance or imperial dissolution and the reduction of the status of the UK to a second-class nation.

As you can imagine, the colonies, represented by Secretary of State for the Colonies Joseph Chamberlain, were not about to give up their sovereignty to be part of this imperialist fantasy, so the plan died a quiet death.

But what if the members of the British Empire decided to give up their sovereignty and become a part of the Imperial Federation?
Edit
hmm it was more the British that nixed it rather than the Dominions. the food tax element of the proposed tariff being reasonably advantageous to Canada for eg, but deeply unpopular in England, especially Lancashire the heartland of free trade. Hence the 1906 elections results. Federation did have some benefits and was thought of as potentially a way around home rule in Ireland by such as FE Smith, but it could only really work if the UK was willing to allow significant Industrial development in the Dominions, and India.Sadly that never really happened quite the reverse, to the detriment of the prospects of long term imperial survival.
 
hmm it was more the British that nixed it rather than the Dominions. the food tax element of the proposed tariff being reasonably advantageous to Canada for eg, but deeply unpopular in England, especially Lancashire the heartland of free trade. Hence the 1906 elections results. Federation did have some benefits and was thought of as potentially a way around home rule in Ireland by such as FE Smith, but it could only really work if the UK was willing to allow significant Industrial development in the Dominions, and India.Sadly that never really happened quite the reverse, to the detriment of the prospects of long term imperial survival.
The Australasian were fine with federation, possibly because they were both settled by so many English people, but there was issues with partially Boer run South Africa, French, Scottish, American, etc settled Canada, and Ireland. Not sure what Newfoundland was up to. Anyways, there were differing veins of republicanism in each dominion and many might find an Imperial Federation to be like returning to colony status. Sure, they would have representatives in London. There would still be the issue of culture, past history, language rights, representing themselves in foreign affairs, etc. I think the Australasians went for Imperial Federation partially out of fear of the Japanese, while the Irish, Canadians, and South Africans had no one who wanted their territory. Perhaps goes into how Australia and New Zealand looked more towards North America for friends and allies after WWII, as the British hadn't been able to back them up sufficiently and they were basically independent at that point anyways.

And as this is in the Before 1900, I presume it is mostly because of the need for some PODs to start early.
 
As you can imagine, the colonies, represented by Secretary of State for the Colonies Joseph Chamberlain, were not about to give up their sovereignty to be part of this imperialist fantasy, so the plan died a quiet death.

But what if the members of the British Empire decided to give up their sovereignty and become a part of the Imperial Federation?
Edit
Sovereignty? What a peculiar word to use for the Dominions' status at this point in time.
While they all had 'self-rule' and 'responsible government', they were very much represented on the world stage by Imperial Britain.
Unlike the US, where you can pinpoint an 'independence day', the various Dominions gradually grew in self-confidence and autonomy.
None of the Dominions declared war on Germany in WWI - they went to war as part of the Empire declaring war.
By WWII, it was a bit different, with Canada, at least, having its own debate and making its own declaration of war.
The Statute of Westminster of 1931 is probably the most significant single point in this evolution.
Sovereignty was NOT the Dominions' problem

The Australasian were fine with federation, possibly because they were both settled by so many English people, but there was issues with partially Boer run South Africa, French, Scottish, American, etc settled Canada, and Ireland.
Again, being Canadian, I don't know that much about e.g. South Africa, but the biggest single obstacle to Imperial Federation in Canada was geography. The US is a HUGE market and neighbour, and there's no way that trade with Britain (let alone Australia) could make up for trade with the US.
So there was tension between people who wanted closer ties with the US, those who wanted closer Imperial ties, and those who wanted protectionism and economic autonomy.

Plus, of course, you have the Quebecois who didn't really want to swallowed up (economically, culturally, religiously, linguistically) by EITHER Britain or the US.

So.
Could the Federation have happened? It's a fun idea, and probably barely possible, if you can manage to get exactly the right politicians in place in all the countries at the same time. Then, you have to worry about India....
 
Again, being Canadian, I don't know that much about e.g. South Africa, but the biggest single obstacle to Imperial Federation in Canada was geography. The US is a HUGE market and neighbour, and there's no way that trade with Britain (let alone Australia) could make up for trade with the US.
So there was tension between people who wanted closer ties with the US, those who wanted closer Imperial ties, and those who wanted protectionism and economic autonomy.
I imagine that we would need to move to a period of high protectionism by the United States to make wanting fuller union with Britain viable, though that would be back when transport was a bit slower. Plus I recently read on here about how some tit-for-tat protectionism by the Canadian government then let to the shipbuilding industries and ports of the Maritimes being cut off from the US, while the ports and shipyards of Ontario and Quebec benefited.

Maybe we go back even further? Somehow get it that Canada isn't united by hook or crook, allowing a unification with Britain to be done on a more local level, with the other areas following along. I imagine that Quebec and Ontario pulled a lot of weight due to their population, sizes, and having most of the government jobs. If we also get a British Natal or Cape Colony, minus the Boer Republics, they would be more amiable to join. Not that the British Colonial Service in the imperial age would let all that gold, diamonds, and other minerals be kept from them for long. Plus they probably didn't want possible German allies around.
 
The Australasian were fine with federation, possibly because they were both settled by so many English people, but there was issues with partially Boer run South Africa, French, Scottish, American, etc settled Canada, and Ireland. Not sure what Newfoundland was up to. Anyways, there were differing veins of republicanism in each dominion and many might find an Imperial Federation to be like returning to colony status. Sure, they would have representatives in London. There would still be the issue of culture, past history, language rights, representing themselves in foreign affairs, etc. I think the Australasians went for Imperial Federation partially out of fear of the Japanese, while the Irish, Canadians, and South Africans had no one who wanted their territory. Perhaps goes into how Australia and New Zealand looked more towards North America for friends and allies after WWII, as the British hadn't been able to back them up sufficiently and they were basically independent at that point anyways.

And as this is in the Before 1900, I presume it is mostly because of the need for some PODs to start early.
actually Canada was fairly ok at the period 1900-05, although I accept the point about the Boers, I suspect the non Boer population might have preferred it over OTL in due course. The fundamental problem was most British voters did not like Tariff reform and without that there was no actual scheme of federation on the table.
 
Top