The British Empire becomes a Federation...

[Vega]

I was talking with Mikado about this, but I was wondering what people thought about the idea to turn the British Empire into a Federation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Federation).

[Cassius]

I've a very positive opinion of the idea of 'imperial federation'; however, there were so many practical obstacles to its implementation that I doubt it would ever have been attainable.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I've a very positive opinion of the idea of 'imperial federation'; however, there were so many practical obstacles to its implementation that I doubt it would ever have been attainable.

We must remember that the British Empire was a group of various territories: dominions, colonies, mandates, protectorates etc., each category governed by diffrent rules. Due to multiple institutional differences I'm not sure whether it would be possible to create a federation, even with a considerable degree of decentralization.

Given London has a little problem with granting autonomy/de facto independence to white-dominated colonies, which would become dominions, I'd rather see British Imperial Federation being made up with these territories, while retaining colonial status quo elsewhere, unless only white colonist would have full citizen rights (like South Africa). But that would make these parts of the federation extremely unstable.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The idea was basically completely delusional.

[Barnes]

The idea was basically completely delusional.

Yeah, this was never happening for a variety of reasons.  One of many being the absolute refusal of colonies and dominions that had just been given responsible government to have to give some of that away.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It's important to remember that the United Kingdom itself never had any federalist traditions. Despite being made up from four historical countries (England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland), the UK always has an unitary government. Even the most recent devolution is far from real federalism.

Also, I have really a hard time seeing the Parliament willing to share powers even with old dominions.

[Vega]

My interpretation of it would be more of a mix between a unitary and federalist Government.

The powers that the various parts of the country would have would not be as great as the powers Scotland's government has.

And Scotland's government has alot more power than a U.S. state, which is considered federalist. So the UK isn't really "unitary" any more.

[Barnes]

My interpretation of it would be more of a mix between a unitary and federalist Government.

The powers that the various parts of the country would have would not be as great as the powers Scotland's government has.

And Scotland's government has alot more power than a U.S. state, which is considered federalist. So the UK isn't really "unitary" any more.

I know what you mean, Vega, but the real difference between a federal and unitary system is the idea of having a sovereign devolved government.  A US state, for example, is entitled certain privileges and powers that are enshrined in the Constitution and cannot be simply taken away; in Scotland, even with the large amount of devolved powers, the Westminster government could take those powers away or abolish the devolved government entirely through simple legislation at any time if they so choose.  Such an option is impossible in the United States.

[Vega]

My interpretation of it would be more of a mix between a unitary and federalist Government.

The powers that the various parts of the country would have would not be as great as the powers Scotland's government has.

And Scotland's government has alot more power than a U.S. state, which is considered federalist. So the UK isn't really "unitary" any more.

I know what you mean, Vega, but the real difference between a federal and unitary system is the idea of having a sovereign devolved government.  A US state, for example, is entitled certain privileges and powers that are enshrined in the Constitution and cannot be simply taken away; in Scotland, even with the large amount of devolved powers, the Westminster government could take those powers away or abolish the devolved government entirely through simple legislation at any time if they so choose.  Such an option is impossible in the United States.

Ah, I see. In all honesty, the divide between Federal and Unitary systems confused me. Thanks for clearing it up.

[retromike22]

I assume then that there would be an increase in the number of MP's?

The resulting Imperial Federation election maps would be amazing.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

My interpretation of it would be more of a mix between a unitary and federalist Government.

The powers that the various parts of the country would have would not be as great as the powers Scotland's government has.

And Scotland's government has alot more power than a U.S. state, which is considered federalist. So the UK isn't really "unitary" any more.

I know what you mean, Vega, but the real difference between a federal and unitary system is the idea of having a sovereign devolved government.  A US state, for example, is entitled certain privileges and powers that are enshrined in the Constitution and cannot be simply taken away; in Scotland, even with the large amount of devolved powers, the Westminster government could take those powers away or abolish the devolved government entirely through simple legislation at any time if they so choose.  Such an option is impossible in the United States.

Well, the entire British Constitution is made up from various Acts of Parliament and unwritten conventions. While it's very easy to simply revoke an Act of Parliament, considered to be part of the Constitution, it would be very difficult in practice.

Although you have a good point. The United States has been legally defined as a federal country from day one. Meanwhile, it took the United Kingdom almost three hundred years, since the act of the Union, to devolve certain powers to it's countries (much, much longer, if you take Wales under consideration). Even even so, the UK is not a federal country, lacking many institutions and laws present in federal entities.

[Vega]

I was drawing out a plan for how this would work, and it would be the following...

The House of Commons and House of Lords would stay intact, but the number of English MPs would be decreased in order to make way for the South African, Canadian, Australian, New Zealanders, West Indies and Oceania MPs. Those are the remaining parts of the empire. These MPs are elected using the Alternative Vote, and there would 720 MPs in total.

There would be a office for each of these respective places (Canadian Office, Australian Office, all the places with representation in the Commons). These offices would have a minister responsible who would be called "First Minister". S/he would have the powers the Scottish Secretary had before devolution.

There would be county councils, local councils or unitary authorities across the country, in the mold of the English form of local Government.

Obviously, the King or Queen would remain intact, but their title would be alot longer.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The House of Commons and House of Lords would stay intact, but the number of English MPs would be decreased in order to make way for the South African, Canadian, Australian, New Zealanders, West Indies and Oceania MPs. Those are the remaining parts of the empire. These MPs are elected using the Alternative Vote, and there would 720 MPs in total.

I assume that also mean Peers from South Africa, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, West Indies and Oceania, right?

[Vega]

The House of Commons and House of Lords would stay intact, but the number of English MPs would be decreased in order to make way for the South African, Canadian, Australian, New Zealanders, West Indies and Oceania MPs. Those are the remaining parts of the empire. These MPs are elected using the Alternative Vote, and there would 720 MPs in total.

I assume that also mean Peers from South Africa, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, West Indies and Oceania, right?

Absolutely.

[Sol]

Such an organization would basically wind up as a Greater India.

[Vega]

Such an organization would basically wind up as a Greater India.

The way I envision it, India wouldn't be part of the country. It would obtain Independence as it did originally.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Such an organization would basically wind up as a Greater India.

The way I envision it, India wouldn't be part of the country. It would obtain Independence as it did originally.

IIRC the British India constituted 3/4 of the Empire's population, which would give one subdivision of prospective federation a tremendous demographical advantage, something other parts wouldn't like very much.

[Vega]

Such an organization would basically wind up as a Greater India.

The way I envision it, India wouldn't be part of the country. It would obtain Independence as it did originally.

IIRC the British India constituted 3/4 of the Empire's population, which would give one subdivision of prospective federation a tremendous demographical advantage, something other parts wouldn't like very much.

Considering that the "other parts" would have Representation in Parliament and a continuous voice in the Cabinet, I think they could put up with a demographical disadvantage.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Such an organization would basically wind up as a Greater India.

The way I envision it, India wouldn't be part of the country. It would obtain Independence as it did originally.

IIRC the British India constituted 3/4 of the Empire's population, which would give one subdivision of prospective federation a tremendous demographical advantage, something other parts wouldn't like very much.

Considering that the "other parts" would have Representation in Parliament and a continuous voice in the Cabinet, I think they could put up with a demographical disadvantage.

Yes, good point.