Globalisation and the Cold War

"We don't mistrust each other because we're armed - we're armed because we mistrust each other" - Ronald Reagan.

The Cold War (1946 - 1991) is seen as a war of politics, or more specifically, a war of ideologies. Throughout these years no actual fighting took place, more so a collection of proxy wars. Tensions between the USA and the USSR rose after the Bolshvik party took charge in 1917, and later both countries were deemed 'superpowers', a term used to describe a country or nation that has the ability to project dominating power and can influence anywhere in the world.
Similarly, globalisation is the process by which the world is becoming increasingly interconnected, mainly due to increased trade  and cultural exchange, The effects of globalisation can be seen through language, with 29% of the English language having a french origin, and even through cultural traditions, For example, Christmas Trees, which are as seen as very British, were brought over from Germany under Prince Albert in the late 1800's. Since then, globalisation has become more prominent and  ( mostly ) conducive for developing societies.

During the 45-ish year war, it wasn't rare for nations to form pacts with one another. This was to essentially gain allies, thus increasing protection. Throughout the Cold War, pacts and treaties such as the Baghdad pact (its success - debatable), the Warsaw pact, the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) and the North Atlantic Treaty (which established NATO ) were agreed upon. Such pacts highlighted the importance of socialisation and comprising differences to ensure their countries safety during potential war.  They encourage nations to communicate and discuss strategies, therefore becoming interconnected over similar agreements, leading to even slight globalisation.

Though no actual fighting occurred during the Cold War, it is seen as a war of ideologies - the capitalist west versus the socialist east. Socialism began to spread, with the help of the red army, across eastern Europe to countries such as Poland, Romania, Lithuania and Estonia. These countries, along with others, became known as the 'Eastern Bloc', leading to the the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (1939) . This was a pact between the USSR and Nazi Germany which divided these Eastern Bloc counties into spheres of either German or Soviet influence. This showed a clear spread of socialism, with it popping up in China in 1949 with the leadership of Mao. The countries following and adopting socialist ideals is an example of globalisation, as different nations are becoming connected through the same ideology. If it wasn't for the globalisation of socialism, the results of the Cold War would of certainty been far more different.

Finally, USA and the USSR faced direct competition in the arms race as well as the space race. As tensions continued to grow, both sides began to develop their military supplies in fear of an all out war. As one side built a bomb, the other would make a bomb 10 times as powerful, then the other would create one 100 times more destructive, and this would continue, along with the growing likelihood  of Mutual Assured Destruction (M.A.D.), This basically insured that in the event of a nuclear attack, both sides would be totally annihilated
By the end of the 60's, both sides developed the Anti-Ballistic Missile System (ABM) to counter the threat of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), first tested by the USA in 1957.This race went on to directly affect the civilians of both sides, as military employment opportunities grew to match the growing demand fore weapons.
This fierce and direct struggle for supreme power passed into the days of the space race, where this time both nations aimed to send the first man into space. This race produced huge scientific advancements for mankind, including missions such as Spuntik 2, the formation of the National Areonantics and Space Administration (NASA), Luna 10 and then Apollo 11. If it wasn't for the tensions between the USA and USSR, such rapid progress on space exploration may not have been achieved.
In both these races, 2 nations shared a goal after being influenced by one another. Although the countries were working more against each other instead of with each other, the 2 races showed slight themes of globalisation; the countries would develop technology similar to their competitor, and then work on a new piece of machinery in response to the other.
Nonetheless, despite a lack of human communication, it can be seen that the 2 nations  could be communicating through their space missions and weapons: the USA and USSR were interconnected through the face that they were essentially competitors.

To conclude, globalisation is the reason socialism spread across Eastern Europe so much, leading to tensions between the east and the west. Therefore, globalisation lead to the popularity of both capitalism and socialism across the world, and it could be seen that the USA and USSR were connected throughout the whole war because they had directly conflicting ideologies. Marx predicted that Socialism will eventually face capitalism, and that such a confrontation is necessary for the world to progress - some even saw the Cold War as the end of history.




.

Constitutional Reform under the current Government

Constitutional Reform under the Government

Considering the current Government have been in power for less than a year thus is gonna be a tricky one, great.

The Conservative agenda for their 5 year term had a few issues concerning constitutional reform, but will they stick to their promises or recreate the infamous 'I'm sorry' video? (Ha, imagine the Torys taking responsibility for their actions...i can dream.) 

One of the most noticeable issues was devolution to Scotland and Wales. After Scotland rejected Independence following the referendum in 2014, Cameron immediately gave them more power (a more 'thanks for staying!' present.)

However, that was under the coalition, and since then, nothing much else has really happened.

The strong presence of the Scottish Nationalist Party with their 56 seats may pressure Cameron in Parliament to announcer further devolution, or may even want another referendum in a few years time.  

Again, since the referendum, nothing much has really happened. but it will happen - well, probably. 

Things have been stirring up in Wales, too. In the St. Davids Day declaration the coalition announced devolution of income tax powers to Wales, which could be introduced via a referendum, (Chill with the referendums m8) 

However, after this was put forward, this offer was swiftly denounced by the Welsh first Minsiter, Cavwyn Jones, who condemned the proposals as lacking fair funding, pressing an unnecessary referendum, and failing to match Scotland in powers offered (salty.) 

The Conservatives seem to pe pretty sold on legislation on further welsh devotion, though. But it will take a while to sort a few things out, especially the funding, as we have our own money problems.

The next pretty big thing mentioned was 'English votes on English Laws' - its been  said so many times that its got itself a nice acronym for itself - EVEL, (looks a bit like evil but...thats surely a coincidence.) 

EVEL has been present in the Tory policy since 2001, but made no real special appearances during the coalition, likely due to the Lib Dem resistance. 

Since the election, EVEL has been mentioned various times in Parliament, More recently in January of this year it was said that 'English Votes for English Laws' rules were implemented in the Commons for the first time. 

Nonetheless, this seemed to of gone out the window when the new Sunday Trading Laws was debated in the Commons. The bill was introduced by the Government planning to extend working hours in the UK, giving more opportunities for trade, as currently most shops operate from 10am to 4pm. 

When it came to the vote in the issue, SNP had their say - although the bill would of not changed their trading hours on Sunday, as they already have enough power to decide them for themselves. Cameron might have to implement this a bit harder next time, (When you try your best but you don't succeed...) 

Lastly, one of the most noticeable constitutional reforms is regarding Europe. The EU - you either love it or hate it really. 

The Conservatives manifesto promised a referendum on the UKs membership of the EU by 2017, which has now been confirmed for June later is year, 

The party has been known to be internally divided over the issue, with Boris campaigning to leave, whilst Cameron wants to stay. Therefore, its important that Cameron doesn't make his MPs 'toe the party line' in this one, as it will settle the divisions once and for all. 

The result of the referendum will directly affect the constitution and sovereignty. as a lot of the sources of the constitution are deprived from the EU, such as laws and treaties. Either way, its sure to be an interesting referendum, especially seeing both sides of the campaign, 

How would leaving the EU affect Sovereignty, & therefore the UKs' constitution?

How would leaving the EU affect Sovereignty, & therefore the U Ks' constitution?

Since the 'rise (and fall) of UKIP', ( which is also the title of another banterous blog-post i did like ages ago) the issue of the EU has been tense. Following 2015, the torys included in their manifesto to hold a referendum on the issue, which was predicted for 2017.
However, its been confirmed to be held on June 23th this year. One of the main reasons to leave the EU is that Britain will become sovereign again or will it?
Sovereignty is said to lie in the EU, as it has ultimate power. Although a fair amount of power does lie in Parliament, which allows laws to be made, if laws passed via Parliament conflicted with the EU, it would override Parliament.
Therefore, in theory, if the UK left the EU full sovereignty would return to Parliament..right?
Michael Fallon, the Defense Secretary, stated that the idea that Britain can be fully sovereign and self governing outside the European Union is "an illusion".
He also states that “Of course there are those who would like Britain to have – not simply the illusion, but the fact – of being a self-governing nation again, where our parliament and courts are absolutely supreme again,”
'“But the difficulty is this – if we got back to the ‘golden age’ where our parliament is absolutely sovereign, you would still have the European Union next door, taking decisions that affect our trade and businesses and our way of life.”
(Quotes from here ) 

A principle of the Uks constitution is EU Membership - but obviously if the referendum is accepted, this would have to change. This states 3 things - 
1) European Law is higher than statute law. This was first established in the Factorame case in 1991, when the European Court of Justice suppressed certain parts of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 because they conflicted with the Treaty of Rome.If the UK left the EU, it would have no higher law to abide to, So, in theory, Parliament would have no restrictions, not even being binded by its successors. 

2) Some EU bodies, notably the European Commission, have supranational powers. 
This allows for EU bodies to impose their will on member states, being able to disregard their personal stance taken by national legislatures.
Again, if the UK left the EU, this wouldn't be able to happen. Pretty simple, really. 

3) The decline of the 'national veto'. The national veto has been seen to protect the presence of sovereignty in Parliament, by allowing any members to block European courts/ European Union measures that threatened the vital national interest, 
(Last time saying this i promise) So, if the UK left the EU, this national veto would not be necessary as EU measures would no longer apply to the UK.

In general, if the UK was to leave the EU, Sovereignty wouldn't really return to the UK and the principles of the constitution would have to be altered quite a bit. 

Where does Sovereignty lie in the UK?

Where does Sovereignty lie in the UK? 

Sovereignty is basically supreme power- in fancy terms, it means 'the legitimate and exclusive rights to exercise power in a given area.' 

The phrase 'Parliament is sovereign' if often use in politics and such - saying their Parliament has supreme power - a pretty simple concept to grasp. But again, this is politics, and nothing is ever that simple. 

There are different types of sovereignty in the UK too. Legal sovereignty is where supreme power lies according to the law, political sovereignty is where supreme power lies in reality, whilst pooled sovereignty is just in the EU. 

Back to Parliamentary Sovereignty though. Its pretty important as its seen as the main principle of the UK Constitution (remember that weird document that exists but isn't really there - kind of like my motivation as this point) - so again, Parliament holds supreme authority in the UK, which enables them to make laws and  argue and stuff. (That part is pretty important, so there is  a reason its repeated a lot- nothing to do with the fact that im trying to reach the minimum word count on this or whatever.) 

AV Dicey, said that '(Parliament)has under the British Constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever, and further, that no person or body is regonised by the law of England of having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.' 

The sovereignty of Parliament can be observed in a number of ways. Government can gain that sovereignty through elections, as if they have the legitimacy of the people, they have the right to rule, and therefore the right to access this supreme power that lies in Parliament. (A pretty good job perk to be honest.)  However, there are a few rules that must be followed with this power. Although it looks like the PM can do as they please, when making important decisions, such as airstrikes on Syria,  they must gain the popular vote in the Commons. Bu if it comes down to something in their manifesto and they gain a strong majority in the Commons, the Lords cannot veto it, such as the EU Referendum to occur in June. 

A previously mentioned, the fact that Parliament can make and amend laws shows their sovereignty - this would be impossible unless it had access to the ultimate power that lies in Parliament. 

Parliament cannot bind, or be binded by its successors. However, the fact that the UK constitution is not entrenched kind of defies this point - for example, if the next Government come in with a strong majority, nothing is stopping them from abolishing the fixed Term Parliament Act passed in 2011. So, does this 'ultimate power' really have an extent..? (leaves on a cliffhanger as i don't want to go into this with too much detail because our next post might have to be on this topic.) 

What are the sources and principles of the UK Constitution?

What are the sources and principles of the UK Constitution?

I don't know how many times I've mentioned that the UK has a number of sources on here, but i know i have - a lot. Its a pretty important feature of the UK constitution though, so its good to get that point in your head. 

(I'm running off 2 hours sleep so this isn't as banters as usual im sorry) 

This basically means that the UK constitution is made up of bits and bobs from other important stuff - you can find bits of it  in statute law, common law, conventions and EU laws and treaties. 

Statute law is law made by Parliament, aka Acts of Parliament or primary legislation - when those people all shout out each other in the HOC. It outranks all  other sources of the  constitution; if a statute was to conflict with, a convention or common law for example, the statute will always prevail. Some acts that hare included in the constitution are the Parliament Acts of 1911 & 1949, Scotland Act, 1998, Government of Wales Act 1998 and the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011. 

Common law is based on tradition, custom and precedent- so whilst statute law is seen as being made by politicians, Common law is sometimes seen as 'judge-made law.' The Royal Prerogative and Traditional Rights and freedoms are included within common law.  

Conventions, therefore, are the key unwritten element within the constitution (aka which makes our constitutions so weird) These are mainly seen as a rule of a conduct or behavior, which everyone just kinda follows and accepts.The exercise of crown power, The appointment of the PM, consulting parliament before going to war, using referendums to approve major constitutional changes and collective ministerial responsibility are all examples of conventions. 

(This is the point where i realized we only needed to discuss the principles of the UK Constitution, not the sources, but i dont have the heart to delete all my work.)

Anyway, moving onto the only important part of this post- the principles!! 

The core principles of the UK constitution are the rule of law, Parliamentary sovereignty, Parliamentary Government, and a  constitutional monarchy.

Starting with the easiest one, the rule of law. This basically means that Government is subject to legal checks and constraints, so the Government is not 'above the law. (So even David Cameron could be arrested for bestiality) 

Parliamentary sovereignty refers to the absolute and unlimited legal authority of Parliament, as it can make, amend, or repeal any law it wishes- 'What Parliament doth, no power of earth can undo', as Blackstone said, the parliamentary authority. 

Parliamentary sovereignty is based om 4 conditions - the absence of a codified Constitution, the supremacy of statue law over other forms of law, the absence of rival legislatures and the fact that no Parliament can bind its successors. 

The UK is made up of a fusion of powers between the executive and Parliament, so Government and Parliament overlap, and our interlocking institutions - this is a parliamentary Government. They kind of come hand in hand, you can't get one without the other, peas in a pod. (almost like Doritos and the salsa dip.) Government, therefore, governs in and through Parliament. However, the closeness of these two institutions has caused tension, as it could easily lead to a situation where the executive could use the sovereign power of parliament for its own ends- the opportunity for an 'elective dictatorship' (Lord Hailsham, 1976) 

Lastly, the constitutional monarchy remains prominent in the UK constitution. 

Although during the 19th century, the majority of the monarchs remaining powers were transferred to the PM via prerogative powers, the monarch remains significant. It is argued that the role of the monarchy was to promote popular allegiance, to serve as a symbol of political unity above the general rough and tumble of politics. 

Bagehot states that the monarch as the right to be informed, be consulted, to warn and to encourage (I could do with an encouraging talk from the Queen to be honest.) 

Damn, thats inspirational Lizzie. 

Should the UK adopt a codified Constitution?

Should the UK adopt a codified Constitution? 

The UK currently has an uncodifed constitution, meaning that it has various sources, including statue law (law made by Parliament itself) common law (based on tradition, custom and precedent), conventions (a non-legal rule; a rule of conduct or behavior) and EU laws and treaties (such as the Treaty of Lisbon, 2009), whereas the US's codified constitution is enshrined in a single document - the differences between codified and uncodified constitutions are highlighted and explained on my previous post -  which is pretty amazing and well written if i do say so myself.

Adopting a codified constitution is a lot more than just stapling all those different pieces of paper together  and being all 'Woo! its codified now!' (well, you could do that. but good luck collecting all those documents) - but it has to be a lot more long and complex then that right? I mean, this is politics after all. 

One pretty big influencing factor is the flexibility of our uncodifed constitution: of course, as it sources from tradition and conventions, it evolves and shapes around our current society and norms - it goes without saying, but what was the tradition and norms in Victorian England are, and without going into too much detail, are a lot more unhygienic then they are today (thank god for the invention of sewers). 

The rigidness of the codified constitution is often argued that it is stuck in the past, as it has entrenched customs and traditions that may be considerably outdated today, and this is when the gun laws are often debated. Hundreds of years ago, 'the right to bear arms' continues and allows  US citizens to own a gun. Back then, his let farmers, for example, protect their land and livestock, when laws were weak. Nowadays though, do people really need guns? Due to its rigidness, their constitution cannot evolve and flourish with the people, and with Americans being extremely patriotic and proud of their constitution, it would be near impossible to change, or even amend; but this doesn't stop Obama from trying to currently make firearms safer. 

Although i just rugged that the codified constitution may be old and outdated, a some think that the uncodifed constitution itself is, well...old and outdated too. (Codified or not, some people just can't be pleased..) 

By a simple google search, its clear  most of the countries in the world have adopted a codified constitution- apart from a small few, including New Zealand, Israel and Saudi Arabia ( #TeamUncodified 4 lyfe)  therefore, codified is more of the 'norm' in politics- but we shouldn't give into peer pressure! 

However, uncodified constitutions are a lot weaker, due to the fact that they are more difficult to entrench. This means the government of the day could easily abolish any law, (considering that they're legitimate), and this could give the executive too much power, as there is no control on governmental power under an uncodified constitution. For example, in the US, there are significant checks and balances on  the leaders power. 

Nonetheless, if the government of the day is legitimate and they have been democratically elected by the people, surely they should have the right to rule, and the power to do whatever they want.   

Overall, i  think the UK should keep our uncodified constitution. It allows our society to grow, its flexible so can be easily altered in times of crisis (eg. following 9/11) and the people are pretty happy with how it is now- and it makes out country just that little bit weirder (not that our politicians are weird enough).

What is a constitution, and why is it important?

What is a constitution, and why is it important?

The constitution has a pretty important role is governing and controlling the country. It may just be a super old and dreary document in some countries, or just a load of separate pieces of paper in others, but it contains vital laws for protecting our rights, and was the very beginning for our democracy. 

Constitutions are such an important part of a countries culture, that if a country is ever faced with an undemocratic, elitist or extremist leader, that they will first aim to destroy or completely modify the constitution, as they often retain leaders power.

The first constitution was created under King Johns leadership, as he started to raise the taxes to fund his (unsuccessful) wars in France. The Barons therefore created the Magna Carta in 1215, to ensure monarchs do not has an extremely excessive amount of power, and to be subject to law. For a few years it 'vanished', until Edward Cook MP, challenged Charles the First as his own powers grew. 

Oliver Cromwell (being the jolly soul he is) chose to ignore the Magna Carta, until  Thomas Jefferson incorporated its decrees in the American Constitution. 

Since then, the Magna Carta has been the base for all constitutions around the world, enshrining our democracy. 

Constitutions can come in different forms - codified and uncodified.

A codified Constitution means that the constitution exists in a single document, such as France, USA, China and Norway. When a constitution becomes codifed, it normally always takes place after an event which calls for a codified constitution. For example, the USA codified their constitution after the independence of British Colonies, and Norway after the counties freedom from Danish rule.

In a codified constitution,the document itself is authoritative, in the sense that it constitutes 'higher' law. The constitution binds all political institutions, including those that make ordinary law. This gives rise to a two-tier legal system, in which the constitution stands above statute law make by the legislature.     

Identification is another benefit of a codified constitution. The Americans worship their Constitution, and the country even sells pocket sized editions of the constitution,  and when becoming the President, they have to take a pledge to protect it. 

However, codified constitutions are extremely hard to alter - since the USA introduced theirs, its only been modified 28 times - but this is so dictators cannot easily amend it. 

The opposite of a codified constitution is an uncodified constitution, as seen in the UK, Canada and New Zealand. This means that the constitution has many sources- in the UK, parts of the constitution can be found in statues, conventions, common law and traditions; because it has so many sources, the UK constitution can be easily amended, and with new laws being passed in the Commons and Lords very often, the UKs constitution can be changed every week. 

To summarize - King John was a bit of an idiot, but thanks to him we now have the super fancy 'magna carta', America loves their guns and the UK could be easily overthrown because of their uncodified constitution. Boom.