No way to effectively govern it. What does an Alberta logger know about coal mining in Queensland? What does a lamb farmer in New Zealand know about oil drilling in the North Sea?
It would inevitably lead to sub-parliaments which inevitanly leads to independence.
The only exampls of a vast state staying united is Russia, and that's purely because Siberia is deliberately underdeveloped to stop any sort of separatism.

>>18451268
>No way to effectively govern it.
I don't agree. The biggest issue was distance and Britain not using its legislative supremacy to make it happen.

I think devolution or regular provincial assemblies would happen right after this.

Surely they’d just remain indpeennt countries but enter a Commonwealrh Economic Union to eliminate trade/labour barriers between eachother, plus a defensive pact.

Shame really, could have acted as a weaker “third option” for countries to align with that want development and investment, but without the full baggage of picking a side of either USA or USSR in cold west

Obviously the UK and Commonwealrh are pro western, capitalist. In terms of political influence, they’re not going to care what economic policies junior members that join from Africa and such, just don’t do genocide or abolish democracy, and don’t nationalise our investments and it’s all good.that way third world countries could seek decelopment investment without immediate jumpstartint commensurate soviet/US aid for rebels to overthrow you for taking aid from the other side.

Of course ideally this requires a careful balancing act. E.t. Britain remains in NATO but gains independent nuclear deterrent when possible rather than buying it from the US (can be a joint Commonwealrh project, tested in Australia’

>>18451262
It was proposed but it was very unpopular in both Britain and the dominions.
The dominions were unwilling to attach themselves to Britain, since the populations would mean even in a democratic content, Britain would have complete control over them (the white dominions had a population amounting to about 12 million, Britain had about 30). The dominions were even unwilling to engage in further cooperation with things like the royal navy, wanting their own separate forces that could protect their own interests.
Britain meanwhile didn't want to adopt a federal system for government, which it regarded as weak and slow to respond (remember at this time the US was a weak isolationist power, and within living memory had nearly broken in two because of that federalism allowing two different systems to exist)
Then there was the matter of trade. It was cheaper and faster to import things from neighbouring countries, rather than a colony half way around the world. Until ww1 broke the worldwide economy imperial preference was deeply unpopular, and attempts to introduce it destroyed the conservative/unionist government in 1906 leading to a liberal landslide. People still remembered protectionist policies of the first half of the 19th century (the corn laws for example) and the starvation it brought to both Britain, and to a greater extent, Ireland.
In short both Britain and the dominions regarded the existing system as superior to a joint federation. But that's not to say they did not realise the problems of the existing system or Britain's decline either, had ww1 been avoided, something might've eventually happened.

>>18451296
It didn't need to be federal.

>>18451385
Use your head, of course it would. A state like that wouldn't be able to operate without a high degree of devolution, and the dominions were opposed enough to the idea as it was, they would never agree to one where even with autonomy, Britain (with 3/4ths of the unions population) would democraticly de facto be able to overule any decisions they make. People who actually supported this idea back in the day wanted a federal state structured along the lines of Canada.
Even within Britain itself unionism was proving to be more than problematic enough, with the Irish home rule movement or the more extreme "home rule all round"

>>18451262
If gladstone had been able to get home rule passed in eighteen eighty five

>>18451268
What does a Orkney fisherman know about Welsh Coal mining or a Lancashire piemaker know about Financing in London?
But I agree with your sentiment. The strategic interests of Britain and Australia are completely different because they're on completely different sides of the planet, that was ultimately the reason why dominions drifted away from britain and the commonwealth never became more than a ceremonial organisation. It'd be a country torn every which way by competing interests

>>18451507
I don't agree. I think having provinces or prefectures under a unitary system would be enough.