If the UK admitted representatives of the American colonies (and others) to Parliament in the 1760s

[Blue3]

Let's say the UK begrudgingly decided to begin admitting representatives of the American colonies (and other colonies, from Canada and Bermuda and the Caribbean and beyond) to Parliament in the 1760s.

How would the history of the UK, and of North America, be different?

Would the US still try to rebel, and would it still be all 13 colonies, and would it still succeed?

How would the 19th and 20th centuries be different?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The American Revolution would've been marginally impacted.

The primary impact would be the continued presence of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and maybe South Africa as constituent parts of the United Kingdom.

[Blue3]

The American Revolution would've been marginally impacted.

The primary impact would be the continued presence of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and maybe South Africa as constituent parts of the United Kingdom.

Wouldn't it change the character of the US, if it clearly became a question of just not liking taxes, instead of idealism?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No Taxation without Representation was a slogan, not the raison d'etre of the Revolution.

Pre-Revolution, the American colonies were de facto autonomous, but the so called Intolerable Acts, especially the Massachusetts Government Act, asserted that Parliament could alter any aspect of colonial governance that it chose. The weak palliative of a few MPs, at most one per colony, wouldn't have affected that source of irritation. Indeed, had it not been for the Glorious Revolution undoing it, it's possible that that James II's attempt to establish a unitary Dominion of New England (including New York and New Jersey) could have sparked an American Revolution in the 1690s on essentially the same grounds.

[Blue3]

No Taxation without Representation was a slogan, not the raison d'etre of the Revolution.

Pre-Revolution, the American colonies were de facto autonomous, but the so called Intolerable Acts, especially the Massachusetts Government Act, asserted that Parliament could alter any aspect of colonial governance that it chose. The weak palliative of a few MPs, at most one per colony, wouldn't have affected that source of irritation. Indeed, had it not been for the Glorious Revolution undoing it, it's possible that that James II's attempt to establish a unitary Dominion of New England (including New York and New Jersey) could have sparked an American Revolution in the 1690s on essentially the same grounds.

It was a slogan, but it mobilized the masses, and has echoed through history as an ideal.

So you think instead it would have been framed as more of a unitary government versus federalism argument, and little else would change?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Federalism? Heavens no! The American Revolution was fought to secure the previous de facto independence of the colonies. The only reason they united was because they realized that individually they were too weak to obtain it. As it was, if it had not been for Franco-Spanish intervention, the armed struggle would have essentially ended by 1780 with a British victory.