WI the United Kingdom incorporated Newfoundland in 1949 instead of admitting it to Canada

*cough* Malta? Even I admit Newfoundland is a stretch, but if NF voted to join the UK, I doubt the UK would ignore it.

Of course they could, with the right determination. Both Westminster and Whitehall much preferred that Newfoundland join Canada instead of integrating with the UK - and as such the British government would do everything in its power to try to ensure integration did not become an option. A case also needs to be made as to how integration would be better than the Commission of Government and the other options, including restoration of the responsible government bit of Dominion status (remember that the de facto restoration of colonial rule in Newfoundland was through the Dominions Office and not through any other part of the Whitehall hierarchy). Now, if it was a binary choice between integration with the UK or Confederation - in effect taking out the restoration of responsible government - then the 1949 debates would be different, in which case it would be a lopsided result in favour of Confederation that would not betray any sectarian bias, since integration could be seen as a continuation of the Commission of Government (which everyone hated). If, however, TTL's 1949 debates made a persuasive case in favour of integration and how it would be different from the Commission of Government, it could probably work but then it would have to deal with the British government constantly undermining the pro-integration position. As well as this time having both the Avalon Peninsula (historically IOTL the most pro-responsible government part of the island) teaming up with the West Coast in voting for Confederation - a twist on the OTL referendum results, which suspiciously look very close to sectarianism rearing its head yet again.

Furthermore, if Newfoundland somehow became part of the UK, then I'll bet you Newfoundland would be made an example of to warn other colonies not to make the same request of integration. Excluding Newfoundland from the Common Travel Area would be one option (and thus enforcing immigration controls on Newfoundlanders arriving into Great Britain, maybe even forcing Newfoundlanders to apply for visas or special travel permits or somesuch - yes, they are British subjects, but they're not really British; after all, they were irresponsible subjects who needed to be taught a lesson, and (IOTL until a couple of years ago) Norfolk Island has similar treatment vis-à-vis the rest of Australia and the States give similar treatment to its Pacific territories, why should Britain be any different?); another option would be making the Commission of Government permanent and thus banishing any opportunity for the return to responsible government, perpetuating some form of de facto colonial status. In terms of Westminster representation as well as local government, despite what others think, I don't think that the British political parties would migrate to Newfoundland. Instead, the pro-integration side would organize itself as a separate Unionist Party, while the anti-integration side (including most of the unions) would organize itself either as a Tory (Canadian definition)-esque Progressive Conservative Party (who probably would have preferred a return to responsible government but instead see Confederation with Canada as the more pragmatic option) or CCF-esque Labour Party, with the latter two dominating Newfoundland's Westminster representation; the centre that would be dominated by the Liberal Party elsewhere in Canada would be split between the two originally anti-integration parties. Newfoundland therefore ends up on a political and economic trajectory similar to Iceland but starting from a much worse base.

(Also Malta is a special case that should not be taken as a potential example for the rest of the Empire.)
 
Furthermore, if Newfoundland somehow became part of the UK, then I'll bet you Newfoundland would be made an example of to warn other colonies not to make the same request of integration. Excluding Newfoundland from the Common Travel Area would be one option (and thus enforcing immigration controls on Newfoundlanders arriving into Great Britain, maybe even forcing Newfoundlanders to apply for visas or special travel permits or somesuch - yes, they are British subjects, but they're not really British; after all, they were irresponsible subjects who needed to be taught a lesson, and (IOTL until a couple of years ago) Norfolk Island has similar treatment vis-à-vis the rest of Australia and the States give similar treatment to its Pacific territories, why should Britain be any different?); another option would be making the Commission of Government permanent and thus banishing any opportunity for the return to responsible government, perpetuating some form of de facto colonial status.
No way would the UK government punish Newfoundland for opting for joining the Union. Sure, Whitehall may have supported N&L joining Canada during the referendum campaign in 1948, but if Newfoundland expresses clearly that they prefer Britain over Canada ITTL, then I doubt that any British civil servants would weep for too long. Indeed, there could be benefits for the UK from Newfoundland - after all, it would mean an access to Newfoundland's fisheries.
 
A good argument here would be Greenland no? It's not very economically profitable; it's resources remain untapped, but Denmark still keeps it.
 
that would be super random, what exactly is the UK going to do with a territory/country on the other side of the Atlantic? It certainly could make politics very difficult especially since it is still pretty far away.

Would be a bit like Greenland in a way actually, random territory super far away that it becomes a bit removed from the politics of its original country. What you have is it probably having its own parliamentary system regardless, even if it is within the UK (i.e. devolution maximus).
 
A good argument here would be Greenland no? It's not very economically profitable; it's resources remain untapped, but Denmark still keeps it.

That's because Greenland doesn't want to become independent, despite the fact that Denmark would be more than happy to allow it.

free-greenland.png
 
That's what I mean, this scenario deposits that Newfoundland and Labrador doesn't want to become independent
But OTL's referendum showed that N&L didn't want independence. All that is needed for this scenario to work are a few changes between the end of responsible government in the 30s and the referendum in 1948 which makes integration into the United Kingdom more attractive for the people of Newfoundland and confederation with Canada less popular.
 
But OTL's referendum showed that N&L didn't want independence. All that is needed for this scenario to work are a few changes between the end of responsible government in the 30s and the referendum in 1948 which makes integration into the United Kingdom more attractive for the people of Newfoundland and confederation with Canada less popular.

That and making "integration" (including representation in the House of Commons) a politically viable idea in the UK. Not easy, given the lack of precedent for "integration" and representation of overseas British colonies. (Not to mention the fact that the UK wanted to rid itself of an economic burden.) Yes, the idea was to be proposed for Malta in the 1950's but (leaving aside the fact that it never went through) even then the Colonial Secretary tried to reassure members of Parliament that Malta was sui generis because of its strategic importance, relative geographical proximity to the UK, etc.
 
Can simply get a separate Dominion instead? Without the financial meltdown OTL, would Britain be as eager moving the more loyal Newfoundland to Canada versus keeping it as part of the Commonwealth? Canada was increasingly spiraling into the American orbit, long term keeping independent Newfoundland might be a better way to stay in the Americas and grapple with Canadian independence. And this might then serve as a gude to retaining other places such as Malaya who could be carved out and stay in the Commonwealth even as the larger piece moves away?
 
Honestly, it's not that simple. Even without the financial meltdown, the political class in Newfoundland were hell-bent on attempting to "develop" the island (read: industrialize) in defiance of all geographic realities and thus embarked on all sorts of white elephant projects (the Newfoundland Railway being the most obvious example) that ultimately the Colonial Building could not finance. Then there's the latent sectarian issues plaguing the island, the Janus-face type of attitude where those in the western parts of the island would prefer being closer to North America while the eastern parts (where the capital and the few good agricultural land there is is located) were more in tune with the UK and also the transposed sectarian attitudes between Protestants (of a variety of different denominations, but with the population ultimately hailing from SW England) and Catholics (hailing from SE Ireland), and ultimately the fact that a good portion of the governing classes in Newfoundland took their cues from Water Street (the main commercial district in St. John's, where the merchant firms were located), many of which preferred to keep things they always were - even if it was not beneficial to the fishermen and their families. Keeping Newfoundland independent would require an earlier POD than 1949 and trying to find a way to balance industrialization (within geographic realities) with reforming the operation of the fisheries and in fact have one complement the other. Combine that with finding a way to further diffuse sectarian tensions more than the denominational compromise (which eventually engendered a great deal of corruption) as well as keeping Newfoundland's finances solvent, and you're well on the way to keeping Newfoundland independent. OTOH, considering the doubts Britain had with the viability of Newfoundland even as a separate colony, if one pushes the POD even further into pre-1900 I could just as well Britain push Newfoundland even further towards Confederation, sectarian tensions be damned, around the same time as the four founding provinces. Therefore, even with post-1900, the UK would know that Newfoundland is only delaying the inevitable so why not gently push Newfoundland along towards its natural market. Newfoundland was eventually going to become part of Canada whether or not the locals wanted it; the only question was not if but when.
 
I still don't understand this. Their population is pretty low, how are they so fractious?

I'll tell you in one word . . .

Tradition!

--

In reality, it's basically part of its complex historical narrative and the origins of its population (and I know I'm over-simplifying, but I'm trying my best here!). For a long time the British government tried to actively discourage settlement in Newfoundland; when the Board of Trade realized that the only way to make Newfoundland "work" was to have some sort of permanent settlement to aid the fisheries, Whitehall relented - though even then, until the mid-19th century the place was still run by the Admiralty (the Royal Navy to you and me). On top of that, when an actual population did arrive in Newfoundland, it was made up of people from both SW England (the West Country) and SE Ireland (among them being native Irish speakers, who kept the language going until at least the late 19th century/early 20th century, at the absolute latest, when the last of them eventually switched to the local English). True to stereotype, the English settlers tended to be Protestant, while the Irish settlers tended to be Catholic. Sectarianism was thus unavoidable. In the rest of Newfoundland, however, their position was part of the whole UK/France rivalry which produced the French Shore, which was long an irritant to the local people. That vacuum allowed Acadians (fleeing genocide back home), Mi'kmaq, and Cape Breton people to stake out a niche for themselves in the West Coast. This led to a regional division where those living on the West Coast felt a stronger connection to the Maritimes (and then, after Confederation, to Canada) while others felt a stronger connection to the Mother Country (TM). Whatever solution would thus be undertaken to solve Newfoundland's problems are thus bound to piss off one segment of the population or another. Advocate for Confederation, and sectarian tensions would flare up in the east of the country (largely eased by means of the denominational compromise, but even then for a while the Irish community basically viewed Confederation as a Protestant plot). Advocate for closer ties with Britain and you risk isolating the West Coast from your grand scheme of things. In that sense, OTL was probably the best model one could hope for. Oh, and bringing it closer to the United States would be a non-starter as far as Newfoundland is concerned, since it was largely isolated from the American Revolution (and even then Newfoundlanders didn't seem to care one way or another), and up until WWII the few exchanges Newfoundland had with the United States were largely negative, in part due to opposition from neighboring Canada, as well as some who migrated to New England for work (which probably helps explain a linguistic anomaly around the Carbonear area that tends to be non-rhotic). While Newfoundland had had some exposure to US pop culture through the radio, it was only with the arrival of American servicemen during WWII that things changed on that score.
 
Which brings me to my other point:
No way would the UK government punish Newfoundland for opting for joining the Union. Sure, Whitehall may have supported N&L joining Canada during the referendum campaign in 1948, but if Newfoundland expresses clearly that they prefer Britain over Canada ITTL, then I doubt that any British civil servants would weep for too long. Indeed, there could be benefits for the UK from Newfoundland - after all, it would mean an access to Newfoundland's fisheries.

I would normally make a snarky response about connecting the British civil service with Yes, Minister, but I'll channel my inner Canadian-ness for once and not expand on that angle any further.

As I see it, "punish" is too strong of a word to describe the UK's relationship in Newfoundland even if the referendum results were not what they wanted. As I see it, starting from the mid-20th century onwards I see a lot of difficulties. Even with the UK constantly undermining the pro-integration position and all that, I share a lot of @David T 's concerns. Not only is there a lack of precedent for such integration, but I also don't see much benefit from the UK taking on such an economic burden - and the UK would be keen to make that known, considering that one of the main arguments the UK had for "disposing" of Newfoundland was their belief that Newfoundland was not economically viable as an independent state and that the influx of income from war work was only temporary, ephemeral. In effect, according to this view, the Iceland route to prosperity (or rather, a much worse version of corruption and patronage politics that stalled any attempt at genuine reform, forcing the country to rely on its primary products, and any attempted reform was basically attempted Russian-style - hence the collapse of the Icelandic economy in 2008) is one that would not be viable in Newfoundland. However, the existing British state - its administrative apparatus, its bureaucratic politics, its politicians, its overwhelming inertia - could be enough of an integration that would probably be the closest one can get to punishment - the easiest explanation being that due to the lack of a viable model of integration of a former colony (and on top of that a former Dominion) into the UK, the only options available would essentially be the existing model that everyone is familiar with, made even easier by the relative lack in Newfoundland of local government apart from a few incorporated municipalities. Furthermore, despite all the advances in communications and technology, Newfoundland is still too far away and too difficult to govern from Whitehall and Westminster, so the existing arrangements used for other areas of the UK would have to work and be stretched to its limits.

Take, for example, the perpetuation of the Commission of Government in a permanent capacity, thus denying Newfoundlanders the chance of making any meaningful change except through Westminster. It sounds harsh, but at that time - Northern Ireland excepted (and even that was a sui generis solution for an age-old problem that at that time was still festering) - the UK never really had the chance to execute what would later happen in the 1990s with the advent of devolution of Scotland and Wales, as well as renewing regional governance in Northern Ireland through the Good Friday Agreement. The UK of the 1940s and 1950s was still a centralized unitary state, with power emanating from the center, with some allowance for administrative devolution for certain issues which needed special attention. Scotland has its own distinct set of institutions retained from the Act of Union, 1707, including its own educational and legal systems, and for a long time this was administered via the Scottish Office, which was another part of the Whitehall bureaucracy much like how a regional development agency in Canada would work. Same thing in Wales (or, at that time, Wales and Monmouthshire, due to a quirk in the law that led some to believe that Monmouthshire was actually a part of England despite its Welsh-speaking majority), which had its Welsh Office for Wales-specific issues. The Commission of Government, given a new coat of paint and a potential redesignation as the Newfoundland Office, would be no different in this case as an intermediate agency between the central government and the particular region, still mired with financial issues and with a stagnant economy with no hope of recovery. Even then, Newfoundland's fisheries were already well on the decline, and that's if overfishing is taken into account, both IOTL through the incursion of foreign ships and generous quotas on the Canadian government's behalf. Now, I don't know about nor am I aware of Britain's fisheries policy around this time, but I'm going to take a reasonable assumption that compared with what Newfoundlanders had experienced up to that point, as well as what IOTL the Canadians allowed, Britain's fisheries policy would be more restrictive - even if in the UK proper that would not seem to be the case. So you have a majority of the populace engaged in an unprofitable industry, having refused all other viable options proposed by the Commission, and now with the advent of fishery quotas that would have as much effect as the OTL cod moratorium, you have an early foretaste of what would come to Scotland, the north of England, and Wales a few decades later with the coal mines and related industries. So now what does the government do? Surely they all can't be on the dole, and the effect of having the military nearby can only be stretched so far. That would be the job of the Newfoundland Office (read: the Commission of Government), who would not be amused by such developments. So the deterrence of integration for any future attempts by the colonies would be in part based on the realities of extending what was actually going on in the UK to the Island itself - what would be perceived as bad treatment or punishment is just basically a logical extension of the British government as it always was even during the boom times, combined with the retention of the Commission of Government, as many colonies which embraced independence did when they modified the existing colonial-era structures to account for the new independent status. Newfoundland would be no different on that score, and its place in the hierarchy of the UK would be that of a peripheral area with, basically, nothing much going on. If the UK experiences economic trouble, the effects would be magnified in Newfoundland, as an area largely reliant on one industry on the decline. In those cases, as with the cod moratorium IOTL, the only realistic option would be emigration - and furthermore emigration to Canada, not the UK. Compared with what the UK would have on offer when it itself is in economic distress and is more concerned with Job No.# 1, the bright lights of Halifax, Montréal (even with its own troubles), Toronto, and even out West with the oil fields would be more tempting. Even Boston, a plane flight over into the one area of the US with a regional culture similar to "home", would also do - Boston media would be just as readily available in Newfoundland as in the Maritimes, and thus whenever a Boston sports team strikes a victory, you'd hear the celebrations coming out of St. John's or Corner Brook. And there would be nothing that Whitehall could do to stop it.

Which brings me over to the Common Travel Area and Newfoundland's exclusion. Now, from what I can surmise, the Common Travel Area can only work here because the UK, Ireland, and the Crown Dependencies are relatively very close to each other, so much so that it would seem like taking the plane or a ferry would be like driving down the street, as well as a very specific set of historical circumstances arising from the formation of the Irish Free State. In keeping the land border reasonably open, even with the Troubles in Northern Ireland and its controls and restrictions on movement by all parties involved, the UK was basically trying to implement with Ireland and the Crown Dependencies what always has existed in Great Britain itself, with the open border between England, Scotland, and Wales. It's this insular nature that allowed the UK to claim a special status in being able to control its borders and thus allowed it to not sign onto the Schengen Area, and hence when Britain retained wartime-era immigration controls between Ireland and the UK for a period pending negotiation on the status of the border (which was achieved in the '50s, I think), the Ulster Unionists protested heavily. Newfoundland is different in this conception of the Common Travel Area - while Newfoundlanders could become British citizens (or, to be more precise, CUKCs, using the terminology of the British Nationality Act, 1948) or, in the case of the Aboriginal peoples of Labrador, British protected persons (a sui generis adaptation of a category of British subject-ship normally reserved for protectorates, Indian princely states, and similar entities, but here adapted to make it congruent with the status of Native Americans and Aboriginal Canadians at that time, stuck in their reserves and reservations and subject to assimilationism) - there isn't that historical connection that enables the Common Travel Area to work as there is in the rest of the UK. Not only that, but a British Newfoundland would be surrounded by boundaries with Canada, with France (cf. Saint Pierre-et-Miquelon), and with Denmark (cf. Greenland). (Even if ITTL the UK joins the EEC, I still don't see the UK signing onto Schengen, which means alternate arrangements would be needed when it comes to the latter two countries exclusively referring to those two territories.)

Newfoundland would thus approach British nationality law coming from an ex-colonial context, where the arrangements under historical British nationality law were much different than in the UK itself, and itself a testament to the fluidity of term "British subject" (later, Commonwealth citizen). In particular, one would have to look at it from the standpoint of the British Nationality Act, 1948, and the brief period of time that Newfoundland remained apart of the UK, as well as the simple fact that Newfoundland is too far away from the rest of the Common Travel Area to make that arrangement workable. The end result is that, to simplify things and make it easier, Newfoundland becomes its own travel area and migration zone, separate from the Common Travel Area (much like how the Overseas Territories are IOTL excluded from the Common Travel Area but are their own travel areas/migration zones); while British immigration, customs, and nationality law apply to Newfoundland as with the rest of the UK, and its border stations manned by British agents, the reality is that despite being part of the UK, Newfoundland works best as a separate zone, which not only makes it easier to keep track of migration flows but also (as per OTL) allows some control with regards to regulating Newfoundland's environment and preventing invasive species from destroying that environment. So, as with the inspection stations operated by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada IOTL, no plants, raw fruit, or anything containing even a speck of foreign soil will be allowed, and even one's vehicle will be sent through the car wash as a precaution. Something like the agricultural inspection stations would never be allowed if Newfoundland remained part of the Common Travel Area, but because of the separate migration zone such additional measures are allowed. Having Newfoundland as a separate travel zone would make it easier to accommodate for the specific nature of migration coming to Newfoundland, which would not be primarily from Europe but from the rest of North America; in this case British immigration law would have to be flexible enough to allow for this variations specific to Newfoundland. Therefore, as far as British visas are concerned, one would need to specify if s/he is travelling to Newfoundland or is transiting through Newfoundland to one's destination. There are, however, downsides to this, which one would certainly be aware of and would learn to adjust. (Note - much of the latter is based on a cursory reading of Wikipedia, so bear with me on this!) The main factor of integrating Newfoundland into the UK, as improbable as it sounds, is in fact timing. If Newfoundland is hastily integrated before that point in 1949 when the full effects of the law are implemented, it would be easy to hand out CUKC status like candy as the vast majority of the population would acquire that status; after 1949, integration is no sure-fire guarantee of acquiring CUKC status - thus allowing for, as an example, the relegation of the Inuit to BPP status, and other such patchwork arrangements. Because of this uncertainty over acquisition of British nationality even if one meets all the requirements, one would need to pick through the 1948 Act with a fine-tuned comb to find something that could work. Now, remember that throughout all this, most Newfoundlanders would be British citizens, with (starting from 1971) the right of abode in the UK, even if emigration due to a stagnant economy to North America is more commonplace. However, much like the later angst over Commonwealth immigration from the Global South, not too many people in Whitehall would be keen on seeing a mass migration of Newfoundlanders (with all the prejudices) to the Mother Country from such a basket case. In that sense, having a separate migration zone also acts as a deterrent against too many people taking up the opportunity to migrate to the UK proper. (For example, from a non-British perspective, the separate migration zone would function much in the same fashion as the special treatment of the Caribbean Netherlands currently, or the special treatment of Norfolk Island with regards to the rest of Australia prior to 2016, with the caveat of being full British citizens, or the special visa waiver program for Guam and the CNMI.) Furthermore, much like what Britain imposed on Northern Ireland prior to the '50s as a result of wartime policy, as well as recognition that the only ways to get to the UK proper from Newfoundland would either be by air or by sea, Britain would also impose immigration controls on Newfoundlanders, who would need to prove their British nationality in front of an immigration officer.

Now, I know there will be those who will say "that's not how Britain normally does things!", or "the UK never did that with anyone else around that time", or something similar. The thing to keep in mind is that if Newfoundland however implausibly becomes part of the UK, it will be treated as a special case due to its contemporary problems and historical context, as well as British prejudices and attitudes towards the Island, and thus would be the only potential case of integrating an economic basket case. By showcasing the UK as it really is, including the separate migration zone for Newfoundland for practical reasons, it would serve as a deterrent and a warning for other British colonies not to follow the same path as Newfoundland took. It would also be contemporary with the whole push under Attlee's Government and subsequent Governments towards decolonization, towards winding down Britain's overseas presence and focus more on problems at home which need attention - in that case, Newfoundland is just a temporary setback that will be corrected later on. It could very well be a possibility that things could change in the '70s and '80s which would bring Newfoundland in line with the rest of the UK (save for the retention of the separate travel area and migration zone, because it makes more sense due to geographical and practical reasons - all that would need to be done here would be to make its existence less onerous), but the reality would be that since the UK would see no benefits from accepting Newfoundland as part of it (and everyone in the government and civil service would know this), the primary way for Britain to come to terms with adding Newfoundland would be to carry on as if nothing happened, and thus making it clear to Newfoundland that they are not wanted. It wouldn't be punishment, per sé - that's too strong of a word and ascribing too much to the government - it would just be an acknowledgement of fact grounded in Newfoundland's specific context, especially with the incapability of the former Dominion's own politicians to rectify any of Newfoundland's problems but just made things even worse. There would be no easy way for Newfoundland in the UK at this point in time.

Now, compared with that, Newfoundland's OTL track as Canada's newest provinces seems like landing on a bed of roses, eh?
 
Top