Christopher Howarth is a former special adviser in the Home Office, parliamentary researcher for the European Research Group, and Conservative candidate at the 2019 general election.
The British Empire once covered a quarter of the Earth. But only once did the English, Scottish, or British parliaments accept MPs from outside of the British Isles: from the town of Calais, represented from 1536 until this innovation was sadly cut short in 1558.
It was possible that the House of Commons might have expanded again following 1668, when the English town of Tangiers was granted a city charter, mayor, and corporation equal to that of English towns – setting it on course to become a Parliamentary borough.
But, as with Calais, troublesome neighbours put an end to it.
Had the idea of colonial integration not ended there, history might have been very different. Britain could have responded to the tax concerns of the American colonies with representation.
If we had, a new trans-Atlantic state might have developed. Instead, we tried virtual representation: the theory whereby MPs in the Houses of Parliament represented interests beyond that of their own constituencies.
This was never going to cut it. So, the British Empire developed with no central political representation, save the occasional imperial war cabinet and imperial conferences; even down to the repatriation of the Canadian Constitution in 1982, it was the British Parliament that remained the Empire’s highest sovereign body.
This was not always the experience of other European empires. The Spanish Cortes once represented the whole Spanish Empire, and Spain still has representatives from its enclaves in Morocco. The Portuguese empire was, formally, a “pluri-continental nation” at the time of its eventual dissolution in 1975, its territories on a constitutional par with metropolitan Portugal.
Meanwhile the USA incorporated Hawaii, although but not Puerto Rico and its other Pacific islands; at one point, statehood for the Philippines was actively debated.
More well known is the history of the French Empire, which still exists to this day.
Algiers in French North Africa was one of the major cities of metropolitan France and as such a member of the EEC; had it not seceded form France it would have remained a part of the EU, as do French Guiana and many island territories,
The United Kingdom, by contrast, never made a serious attempt to expand the Union after 1801.
Joseph Chamberlain and the Imperial Federation League may have tried to make the case for an Imperial Parliament, but in time Imperial Conferences and the 1931 Statutes of Westminster were the British response. Even Winston Churchill, an Imperialist romantic and opponent of the Statutes of Westminster (at least for Ireland) only ever suggested the incorporation of France into the UK in the dark hours of 1940.
Yet there were opportunities – and much later than you might think. In 1956 Malta, following the experience of the Second World War, voted in a referendum to accede to the UK; it would have had three MPs at Westminster.
Yet it never happened. Opposition from the Catholic Church, the post-war economic situation, and the island’s declining strategic importance after Suez led to London getting cold feet.
But the idea of enlarging of the United Kingdom may yet be an idea whose time has come at last.
Historically, proposals to expand the Union were complicated by the need to impose uniformity, such as tax rates, on disparate territories. Yet in the era of devolution, that need no longer be an superable barrier.
There are 14 British Overseas Territories and three Crown Dependencies, making up about half a million people. They differ widely in size, economy, and geography, but all have chosen to maintain their links to the UK as part of the British family.
They are self-governing, for the most part. But London retains responsibility for their defence and foreign policy.
Given this, why should these territories not have representation in Parliament?
Take Gibraltar. With a population of 33,000 British citizens, it is the same size as that of the Westminster constituency of Orkney and Shetland, and is a strategic asset. The Rock could easily join the United Kingdom while retaining its devolved form of Government and taxation system.
In fact, there is already a body of opinion in Gibraltar that would wish to do just that.
In 1969 the Integration with Britain Party won seven of the 15 seats to Gibraltar’s House of Assembly. Yet as with Malta, their hopes were dashed London; Roy Hattersley, apparently knowing better than the IPB’s voters, argued that “a new form of integration with Britain were neither practicable nor desirable in the interests of Gibraltar.”
Today, the IBP’s successors in the Gibraltar in Westminster Movement continue to make the case. And why not? Joining the UK would end its status as a dependant territory, and so finally nullify Spanish (and Argentine) arguments based on the UN definition of decolonisation.
Other territories might similarly wish to join. They should have the choice. It’s time for a new Act of Union, one that extends the offer of full membership of the United Kingdom to all the overseas territories.
The offer would be for representation in the House of Commons and Lords and equal access to the UK’s internal market, and equal citizenship, while retaining their devolved governments. Options such as freedom of movement could also be negotiated, if they wanted it.
Perhaps none would wish to take up the offer at this time. But it could be left open; the Australian Constitution still maintains a right for New Zealand to join.
Who knows – someday, we might even offer the full benefits of being part of the UK to that far-flung outpost, Northern Ireland.
Christopher Howarth is a former special adviser in the Home Office, parliamentary researcher for the European Research Group, and Conservative candidate at the 2019 general election.
The British Empire once covered a quarter of the Earth. But only once did the English, Scottish, or British parliaments accept MPs from outside of the British Isles: from the town of Calais, represented from 1536 until this innovation was sadly cut short in 1558.
It was possible that the House of Commons might have expanded again following 1668, when the English town of Tangiers was granted a city charter, mayor, and corporation equal to that of English towns – setting it on course to become a Parliamentary borough.
But, as with Calais, troublesome neighbours put an end to it.
Had the idea of colonial integration not ended there, history might have been very different. Britain could have responded to the tax concerns of the American colonies with representation.
If we had, a new trans-Atlantic state might have developed. Instead, we tried virtual representation: the theory whereby MPs in the Houses of Parliament represented interests beyond that of their own constituencies.
This was never going to cut it. So, the British Empire developed with no central political representation, save the occasional imperial war cabinet and imperial conferences; even down to the repatriation of the Canadian Constitution in 1982, it was the British Parliament that remained the Empire’s highest sovereign body.
This was not always the experience of other European empires. The Spanish Cortes once represented the whole Spanish Empire, and Spain still has representatives from its enclaves in Morocco. The Portuguese empire was, formally, a “pluri-continental nation” at the time of its eventual dissolution in 1975, its territories on a constitutional par with metropolitan Portugal.
Meanwhile the USA incorporated Hawaii, although but not Puerto Rico and its other Pacific islands; at one point, statehood for the Philippines was actively debated.
More well known is the history of the French Empire, which still exists to this day.
Algiers in French North Africa was one of the major cities of metropolitan France and as such a member of the EEC; had it not seceded form France it would have remained a part of the EU, as do French Guiana and many island territories,
The United Kingdom, by contrast, never made a serious attempt to expand the Union after 1801.
Joseph Chamberlain and the Imperial Federation League may have tried to make the case for an Imperial Parliament, but in time Imperial Conferences and the 1931 Statutes of Westminster were the British response. Even Winston Churchill, an Imperialist romantic and opponent of the Statutes of Westminster (at least for Ireland) only ever suggested the incorporation of France into the UK in the dark hours of 1940.
Yet there were opportunities – and much later than you might think. In 1956 Malta, following the experience of the Second World War, voted in a referendum to accede to the UK; it would have had three MPs at Westminster.
Yet it never happened. Opposition from the Catholic Church, the post-war economic situation, and the island’s declining strategic importance after Suez led to London getting cold feet.
But the idea of enlarging of the United Kingdom may yet be an idea whose time has come at last.
Historically, proposals to expand the Union were complicated by the need to impose uniformity, such as tax rates, on disparate territories. Yet in the era of devolution, that need no longer be an superable barrier.
There are 14 British Overseas Territories and three Crown Dependencies, making up about half a million people. They differ widely in size, economy, and geography, but all have chosen to maintain their links to the UK as part of the British family.
They are self-governing, for the most part. But London retains responsibility for their defence and foreign policy.
Given this, why should these territories not have representation in Parliament?
Take Gibraltar. With a population of 33,000 British citizens, it is the same size as that of the Westminster constituency of Orkney and Shetland, and is a strategic asset. The Rock could easily join the United Kingdom while retaining its devolved form of Government and taxation system.
In fact, there is already a body of opinion in Gibraltar that would wish to do just that.
In 1969 the Integration with Britain Party won seven of the 15 seats to Gibraltar’s House of Assembly. Yet as with Malta, their hopes were dashed London; Roy Hattersley, apparently knowing better than the IPB’s voters, argued that “a new form of integration with Britain were neither practicable nor desirable in the interests of Gibraltar.”
Today, the IBP’s successors in the Gibraltar in Westminster Movement continue to make the case. And why not? Joining the UK would end its status as a dependant territory, and so finally nullify Spanish (and Argentine) arguments based on the UN definition of decolonisation.
Other territories might similarly wish to join. They should have the choice. It’s time for a new Act of Union, one that extends the offer of full membership of the United Kingdom to all the overseas territories.
The offer would be for representation in the House of Commons and Lords and equal access to the UK’s internal market, and equal citizenship, while retaining their devolved governments. Options such as freedom of movement could also be negotiated, if they wanted it.
Perhaps none would wish to take up the offer at this time. But it could be left open; the Australian Constitution still maintains a right for New Zealand to join.
Who knows – someday, we might even offer the full benefits of being part of the UK to that far-flung outpost, Northern Ireland.