The Imperial Federation - Should it have gone ahead?

Scotland is a far more conservative place than England, particularly historically, but even today. Then again, I think you've simply failed to understand the meaning of the word 'conservative'.

No they don't. To think of just one example off the top of my head: Alaska. Equally, countries like France and the Netherlands have their existing colonies as an integral part of the mother country's constitutional framework, even today.

There is a lot of anti-English racism in Ireland. I will not dignify such vile, backward and revolting views by pretending there can be any justification for them. If you want to sit isolated and try to defend racists and bigots, feel free - but I don't think you'll find much support.

Would have been brilliant.

Wait.... you're for an Imperial Federation but against an integrated EU?

For those of you who don't know what the Imperial Federation is, read this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Federation

The Imperial Federation was a proposal to turn the British Empire into a federated superstate, which would combine the benefits of a large power with that of small, efficient governing. Member of this Federation would likely have been the largely British-descended dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, as well as Ireland and South Africa.

"Supporters of Imperial Federation regarded the United Kingdom as having two possible futures; imperial union and continued long-term importance or imperial dissolution and the reduction of the status of the UK to a second-class nation."

Looking back now, we know that the British Government chose the latter choice. But, should the first choice have been taken? With an Imperial Federation, Britain might have maintained its status as a big international power, instead of the decline we witnessed in the 20th century.

FACTS:

Using contemporary statistics, the Imperial Federation consisting of the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland would have had:

A population of roughly 125 million

An economy with a nominal value of 5.381 trillion dollars, which would have made it the second largest in the World

Would have spanned three continents

Yupp.

Inconsistency in reasoning much? In principle there's no real difference between the two.

In that case you should start by expressing yourself more cleary. I assumed you were talking about politics which is why I laughed when I read your post.

Alaska and Hawaii are hardly integral US states, and as you may have noticed they're still quite close to the other US states

nothing quite like what this federation would like look, with Australia and Canada at opposite ends of the world.

As for French Guiana, it too is hardly an integral part of France

Most of the US states border each other, most of the Russian states border each other, all of the Mexican states border each other, all of the Brazilian states border each other, do you see the pattern evolving here?

Not at all.

There are very big differences between a European Union and a Federation based on the British Empire. I am surprised you cannot work it out

Both the (integrated) EU and a British Federation would be based on a federation of states. The only difference I can notice is the elevated role of the UK in the latter, which I suspect is your only reason for supporting it.

I think you need to invest in a globe rather than looking at a two-dimensional map with Britain at the centre.

Do you think this federation would have worked in practice, circa the turn of the century?

It is not my only reason, but it is a big reason.

This is where I would like to clarify my European position. I do not support the European Union, but I do support a European Union.

It is plausible.

Do you think this federation would have worked in practice, circa the turn of the century?

It was and still is a good idea. However it is killed by defence considerations. Canada has no nearby enemies. Britain has Russia/Europe (depending on time period), and Australia has China/Japan (depending on time period). It would turn into Canada subsidising two military establishments at opposite ends of Eurasia. It might still be workable if the people involved genuinely felt themselves to be countrymen, but it seems that they did and do not. Rather, it was a combination of self-interest and inertia that held the Empire together so long as the UK was a useful benefactor, and as soon as this ceased to be the case Aus/NZ and Canada immediately abandoned Britain and supplanted her with America.

Plus, the present push seems to be toward plutocratic continent-states. I don't understand why people think this a good idea, but they seem to.

But Canada is almost right next to Russia

But Canada is almost right next to Russia