Globalisation and it's impact on Superpowers

Globalisation and it's impact on Superpowers

Globalisation on it's most simple level is said to 'shrink the world' as organisations, nations and industries come closer together and rely heavily on one another. Countries now depend more so on one another than ever before in history, a collapse of one nations economy can cause a domino affect, crippling entire continents as a whole. One key effect of globalisation is its ability to turn regular nations into global superpowers, a superpower can easily be defined as a nation or group of nations (such as the European Union) that hold massive amounts of power militarily, economically, culturally and technologically. If a nation contains each of these aspects it can be considered a Global Superpower, the current and only superpower on this Earth is the United States, this is due to its main rival the former Soviet Union being relegated to a World Power after the collapse of the USSR in 1991. Its clear that globalisation affects which nations become superpowers, but why is this?

To begin with globalisation has helped bring the worlds economies together, as previously stated the majority of nations now rely on one another economies in order to assist their own. An easy way nations can assist their economies is via trade agreements, for example the European Union and the North American Free Trade Agreement all allow their members to trade between one another without having to pay tariffs. Therefore a nation can increase its income by trading with a wider financial market boosting its GDP and placing on the path to becoming a economic superpower. China is predicted to become a world superpower in the years to come and it mainly has its economy to thank for this. Before globalisation hit heavily in the far-east China was a nation of huge size with a small economy, however in the decades following World War 2 its economy has sky rocketed mainly due to its creation and distribution of cheap goods world wide, thus it is a potential superpower as the vast majority of nations rely on Chinese goods , especially countries such as Brazil and Thailand which fail to produce sufficient amounts of cheap goods. The fact that globalisation inter-twines the worlds economies means that states are far less likely to go to war with one another, this is known as the Dell theory of conflict prevention, the last time two major nations went to war is over 50 years ago, thus it can be said that globalisation assures peace between the majority of first world countries. 

Secondly globalisation has allowed for greater military co-operation between nation states. In the past the key Realism idea that 'each nation pursues its own interests' was accurate, never the less once globalisation allowed nations to communicate with ease this soon changed. This can be seen as former Superpower Great Britain has been working hand in hand with the United Stated for years, additionally nations which were once rivals also work together , e.g the United States and Japan. This cooperation may be initiated not to give the smaller states more power but instead to aid the already powerful superpower in order for them to act as an effective so called 'World Policeman'. The idea that not all states look for power is a key point of liberalism. The ease of communication and sharing intelligence brought about by globalisation has meant that some nations which may have once been considered militarily insignificant are now major players in the political scene, this is in reference to nuclear weapons. Quick and easy communication has meant that nations such as Israel, India and Pakistan have all been able to acquire and construct weapons of mass destruction, making them world powers by default, its likely that without globalisation on the scale it is today this would have been averted. 

Globalisation has also helped nations become extremely powerful in reference culture. Before globalisation the cultures and traditions of far away countries had little affect on other nations, however the new forms of media that came along side mass globalisation has lead to many nations being seen as culturally powerful or influential. For example during the cold war the two superpowers , the USA and the USSR, exerted their influence and culture on Europe. The repercussion of this being that Eastern and Western European traditions now greatly differ from one another, the United States influenced the West to be addicted to consumer goods and american media, whilst the Soviet Union influenced the East to be hard working and respectful of their past Slavic traditions. Despite culture not being on the same level as military power when considering what nation is a superpower it is still an important feature to remember, a nation which is heavily influenced by a foreign culture may feel as if it has more in common with said foreign culture than its own past. For example Canadians may struggle culturally to stand out against the behemoth which is the United States. Recent Surveys and Polls have found out that the top three most culturally influential countries are the United States, United Kingdom and Germany, all three have global influence when it comes to culture. 

Overall its clear to see that globalisation has had a massive affect on the worlds Global Superpowers and general world powers, the reliance on one another's economies coupled with world wide military cooperation, ensures that two major powers are unlikely to go war directly with one another (although a proxy war is always a viable solution). Globalisation can also be credited for mass democratisation, this liberal idea as so far ensured peace for the majority of the world. In all globalisation can be seen as a positive and a negative, many aspects such as the sharing of nuclear technology have pros and cons attached to them, e.g a con being that they have devastating affects a pro being that they act as effective deterrents. Within a few decades it is likely that continued globalisation will bring forward new superpowers, China and its grand economy, Brazil and its vast natural resources or perhaps India and it's enormous workforce and industrial capacity. 

What are the Governments key areas of Constitutional Reform?

What are the Governments key areas of Constitutional Reform?

Constitutional reform is a touchy subject for any politician or party, it is often frowned upon as some see it as the governments way to increase their power and influence. Where as others see it as a necessary procedure which allows a nations political system to evolve for the greater good. In the past, other governments have implemented a limited number of constitutional reforms, for example Tony Blair's Labour government put in place the House of Lords Reform in 1999, this Act reduced the number of hereditary peers in the House of Lords down to 92 (Currently at 88). This was merely one of many reforms put in place by previous governments, but does this necessarily mean that the Conservative government in power now wishes to follow up with their own line of constitutional reforms?

Firstly, does the current wish to put in place any new constitutional reforms? Well, to begin with the issue surrounding the EU will have a knock on effect for the constitution, as leaving the EU would therefore restore all power back to Westminster. Not only this, but it would also mean that EU law no longer holds pride of place over British Law. Never the less the majority of the Conservative government and the Prime Minister himself are against leaving the EU, its likely that the Conservatives will run a campaign against leaving the EU in the hope that constitutional changes are not made. Yet the issue surrounding the EU does not mean that the government is against constitutional reform as the British Bill of Rights proves. The Conservatives wish to put in place the British Bill of Rights , which would take place over the Human Rights Act. The Bill means that the Human Rights Act is no longer binding over the UK Supreme Court, additionally the European Court of Human Rights loses its ability to change UK law and merely becomes an advisory body. It can some what be seen that this Bill has the objective of removing the Human Rights Act put in place by Labour and it could be guessed that the Conservatives wish to undo Labours reforms of the past and introduce solely Conservative reforms. 

The Conservative government made it clear in their last manifesto that any large scale House of Lords reform was not of top priority to them, this was said despite all the other major, and many of the minor, party's stating that they would go ahead with ambitious House of Lords Reforms. Statistics show that under the Cameron lead coalition of 2010-15 the House of Lords grew more rapidly than any other post-war period. As previously stated it seems the Conservative-Labour divide is being made ever so clear. The Conservatives also wish to implement English votes on English Laws, this idea has been presented on multiple occasions, yet most recently due to the coalition no real progress was made (Due to Lib Dem resistance). The Bill would give MPs of England and Wales a fairer say in the laws that only affect their country. This Bill would help fix the problem that English MPs cant vote on issues that have been devolved to other parts of the UK yet Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish MPs can vote on issues that concern England. The Conservatives state that it will strengthen England's voice , just as devolution gave Scotland a larger voice.  The Bill has not been put in place yet is under going discussion.

Overall the current government wishes to put in place a small array of constitutional reforms, yet it seems that this is counter acted by the removal of reforms put in place by previous Labour governments. Its likely that with a majority in Parliament, a large percentage of these reforms will be eventually passed. Most of Bills seem to attempt to get a better deal for England and the UK whilst not being too ambitious or risking the cutting of ties with the European Union completely. 

How Would Leaving the European Union Affect Sovereignty and Therefore the UK's Constitution?

How would leaving the European Union affect sovereignty and therefore 

the UK's Constitution?

It was recently announced by Prime Minister David Cameron that a referendum regarding the UK's place within the European Union is to be held on the 23rd of June, the decision to leave or stay could have serious long and short term repercussions for the United Kingdom. All British citizens over the age of 18 will be able to take part in the nation-wide referendum, its still being debated whether there will be a large turnout or not. I personally see staying within the EU as a beneficial thing, it makes the UK more influential world wide , as well as aids the economy. Never the less many of those promoting Britain's exit from the EU seem to claim that the UK will become sovereign once again, is this really the case? If so will this affect our constitution? 

According to the constitution Britain's sovereignty lies within the Houses of Parliament, its this political institution that holds the power to create laws, put in place laws or remove them completely. However since the UK became part of the EU it has in fact lost some of its sovereignty, for example all EU laws now completely over shadow laws put in place by our parliament, additionally the European Convention of Human Rights can intervene in certain issues and may stop the passing of a 'British Bill of Rights'. Admittedly a lot of our sovereignty has been taken from Westminster and is now transferred to Brussels. If we were to leave the European Union we would no longed be obliged to align ourselves with EU laws and conventions, it would give the country greater power when it came to dealing with holding suspected terrorists or deporting immigrants, at the cost of security and economic factors.

The un-codified constitution of the UK will also be affected if we leave the European Union, to begin with the UK could now introduce a wide variety of new Bills as they're no longer under EU regulations. Furthermore various statutes and conventions concerning trade and so fourth with the EU can now be over looked as its no longer binding, this could have a negative or a positive affect on the economy.

Overall if the UK did decide to opt out of the European Union it would receive the majority of its sovereignty back, however as Defence Secretary Michael Fallon stated 'The Golden Age' of sovereignty is over and the EU is still going to be able to influence the UK even if it leaves the EU. Never the less Westminster would see a boost in its power, at the cost of throwing Britain into the unknown. 

Where does sovereignty lie in the UK?

Where does Sovereignty lie in the UK?

The UK is a parliamentary democracy, with an un-codified constitution that is also unwritten, never the less contained with in this constitution is the article which states where the UK's sovereignty lies. Sovereignty is the legitimate and exclusive right to exercise power in a specific area, basically stating that sovereignty is a form of ultimate/ supreme power. In the UK the Parliament, more specifically the House of Commons, have the power to pass or reject laws and legislation, however is this really where the Sovereignty lies?


Firstly, in the UK's constitution it states that Parliament holds supreme authority in the UK, therefore it is the only real body in the UK which is able to pass, reject or remove laws. Additionally almost all key decisions have to go through parliament in order to become legitimised, however issues regarding military and foreign affairs can be passed and decided by the Prime Minister, additionally parliament is not bound by its predecessors, for example this states that any previous parliaments cannot influence the current one. Although some might argue that local councils have control of their constituencies it is actually parliament that allows them to do this, as power is dedicated to them by parliament, yet this power can be repealed if necessary. Therefore these points make it clear that parliament holds true power in the UK, and as a democracy it shares this to various places.

On the other hand parliamentary sovereignty can be argued due to a variety of reasons, to begin with the UK is part of the European Union meaning that in many cases UK law is inferior to that of the laws set in place by the EU, the Treaty of Rome in 1973 made this point apparent. Therefore it is debated that power has been stolen by the European Union and is limiting the UK's sovereignty, never the less parliament can vote and withdraw from the EU at any time. Furthermore since the introduction of the fixed term act an election is held every 5 years, some argue that at this point sovereignty really lies with the people as its their votes that holds true power, upon the end of the election power is transferred back to parliament.

Overall despite various arguments against where sovereignty lies, its clear to say that parliament holds the sovereignty. The fact that its written in to the constitution, via a statute, only reinforces this point, some say that with devolution the parliament lost some of its sovereignty however this was merely parliament spreading out its supreme power, and it could very easily take all of that power back if it wished. A parliament being sovereign is somewhat common place in the political world with countries such as India and Canada following suit.

What are the core principles of the UK Constitution?

What are the Core Principles of the UK Constitution?

The UK constitution, as mentioned in previous blogs, stands out for an array of reasons, unlike many of the constitutions of the world, the British constitution is un-written and un-codified. This means unlike the constitution of the United States the British constitution is not contained within a single document and is not directly written down. This unique type of constitution may cause its core principles to differ to that of other nations, and this begs the question, what really are the core principles of the UK's constitution.

To begin with lets look at the first core principal, this being Parliamentary Sovereignty. The idea of having sovereignty is essential for all constitutions, in the UK sovereignty lies with Parliament or more specifically the 'Crown in Parliament'. Sovereignty means that Parliament has the power to create, adjust or remove any law it demands, some may argue this is undemocratic as power is concentrated within the single body of Parliament. Furthermore many have argued that Parliament in the UK is not completely sovereign as many other political factors can greatly limit its sovereignty, these can include over powerful pressure groups, large trading partners such as various EU member states or the United States. The policies and actions of major worldwide organizations can restrict the parliamentary sovereignty, one prime example of which would be the UN which can put forward laws everyone must apply to.

A second core principal of the UK's constitution is the Constitutional Monarchy, despite the modern day monarchy lacking any real power it still holds a significant place in the British political world and is a key part of the constitution. During the 1800's the majority of the reigning monarchs power was transferred to parliament, more specifically the ministers that make up Parliament but mainly to the Prime Minister. A man by the name of Walter Bagehot made the distinction between 'dignified' and 'efficient' parts of the constitution. He considered the monarchy and the House of Lords to be a dignified section and then on the other hand the cabinet and House of Commons to efficient, but he made it clear that a 'dignified' institution still played a vital role even if they lacked major political power. Therefore in the modern day the monarchy is to play the role of being a political symbol in order to promote allegiance during times of political turmoil. Now days the monarch does have the power to take back his or her power but they often refrain from doing so, as the backlash would be too severe, the monarch according to Bagehot the modern monarch should only be informed, be consulted as well as warn and encourage the government.

Thirdly the Rule of Law is a key principle of the UK constitution. Many have stated that the rule of law is an alternate form of codified constitution, despite there not being any higher law the government must still under go legal checks and political/power restraints. This therefore stops the ruling party from becoming above the law, they cannot enact or plan to enact legislation that would make them unaccountable for there problems or allow themselves to break the constitution.

Overall these key principles are needed for an effective constitution, despite people thinking that a codified constitution is the most effective type of constitution, countries without one have put in place principles in order to be as democratic as possible. Furthermore there are additional core principles that make up the constitution such as EU membership and a Parliamentary government, these all enable the UK's constitution to be an effective safe guard against unconstitutional laws or an over-mighty ruler. 

In My Opinion, Should the UK Adopt a Codified Constitution?

Should the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland adopt a Codified Constitution?

The UK stands out in the political world for a wide array of reasons, it may be due to its vibrant historical past or the continued survival of the monarchy (be it with reduced powers), or perhaps for its unique constitution. The UK has an un-codified constitution, whereas the United States has a codified one, this means that deep down on a constitutional level there are a great number of differences between the two. With a codified constitution being the most common form of constitution in the modern world, however does this specifically mean that its a more effective form of constitution ? If so, should the UK put measures in place in order to adopt a codified constitution? 

To begin with lets look at the perks of having our constitution remain unchanged, the constitution of the UK is un-codified, this means that the constitution is not with held in a single document, in our case the constitution is dispersed in a variety of ways, including statues and agreements. Additionally the UK's constitution is not written down, this differs from the constitution of the United States, their prized constitution is written and contained with in a single document, this was signed upon the formation of the US after the war of independence and the actual document itself is housed in the National Archives. One major pro to having a codified constitution is that is not entrenched, instead the UK's constitution changes and evolves with the times in order to suit modern issues in the most effective way possible. Furthermore the lack of entrenchment cuts short the time taken to adjust a constitution, leading on from this the British constitution is said to be flexible. The term flexible means that the constitution can be amended via  an ordinary process of legislation, this makes it incredibly easy to make changes to the constitution.

Now let's examine the positives of changing our constitution to a codified document. Firstly, a codified constitution comes with something called 'entrenchment' , this feature can be pictured as a sort of non-literal trench , it has the key goal of stopping a government from making short term amendments. For example entrenchment could stop a government from suddenly removing people's Human Rights in order to then discriminate against then or a minority, or stop the government from giving themselves excessive powers. A codified constitution also allows all key constitutional provisions to be collected together within a single document , this makes it easier to examine current clauses or articles of a constitution. Finally, a codified constitution would make itself judicial, this means that important constitutional changes are scrutinised heavily by judges , this way it's ensured that changes are only made with the intent to protect the people and the nation. Although this can occur in an un-codified constitution it's much harder to do and so forth.

With all the evidence examined , I personally think that the UK should not change its constitution to a codified one. One main reason for this is the idea that the British constitution evolves and changes with the times , there it ensures that the constitution is at its most modern and effective 24/7, furthermore this would mean that when it comes to issues regarding racism and homophobia the British constitution would have already adapted in such a way as to immediately over come the modern challenges (would allow gay marriage and would charge those who promote racism). Secondly its key to keep our constitution un-codified as it allows it to be flexible , this is an important feature as it speeds up the time taken to adapt and implement new laws , to reflect social change through the ages. Overall it's important that our un-codified constitution remains unchanged , it has proven time and time again to be the most efficient way of governing our society , it's flexibility and stability has assured that it's a key asset in the British political world.

What is a Constitution and why is it important?

The Importance of a Constitution

Constitutions are famed in the political world for being the key to safeguarding the rights and freedoms of the general populous. The most famous constitution is that of Americas, which includes some memorable amendments including: the right to keep and bear arms and the right to plead the fifth amendment (Right to say nothing when questioned). Every nation on the planet has a constitution of some kind, however each one is different in its own right, some are written, some are not and in certain cases the constitution is split amongst different documents. Many nations look to their constitutions in order to point out the limitations the government has, after all a constitution is set out to reveal how limited the governments power is over the people.

To begin with lets look at what a constitution actually is. In the simplest terms possible, a constitution is a set of rules that govern a country. These rules aim to: protect the peoples civil liberties, protect the people from the government and in turn these protect against an autocracy or dictator. A constitution also organises the distribution of power within a political system, for example in the UK this was achieved via 'devolution', this was where power had once been centralised in Westminster, however after much debate power was dispersed with Scotland getting its own Parliament, whilst Northern Ireland and Wales gained their own assemblies. The reason as to why various states adopt constitutions is simple 'We cannot trust the government, or anyone that has power over us'. If a nation lacked a constitution there would not be a barrier , meaning the government could do as it wished without limitation. For example people could be scrapped of their freedoms and rights.

The constitution is different to that of other countries for a variety of reasons. To begin with the basis of the UK's constitution comes from the Magna Carta which was created in 1215, this was created because the people , tired of paying excessive taxes, demanded that the King must abide by the laws of the land and people were given rights against the wishes of the King, therefore reducing the powers of the Monarchs. The Magna Carta is still of use today as certain clauses still remain in use. The UK's constitution is different in the sense that it is unwritten and not codified, this means the constitution is divided between various documents, treaties and  statutes. Its also not written down unlike the American constitution that was written down and signed in 1787, this constitution was written down in a single document and outlines the rights of the people in this way. The majority of nations have a codified constitution, these include the USA, Mongolia, France etc. Yet only 5 nations lack a codified constitution these are: the UK, Israel, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia and Canada.  

Overall why is it important to have a constitution? Well constitutions are essential for any democracy for a wide array of reasons, as previously mentioned they can prevent the rise of autocratic leaders (dictators) by limiting the governments power and ensuring that the rights of the people are protected. As often seen through history, excessive power often leads to corruption, therefore its essential for a constitution to be put in place as it prevents serious corruption and mis-use of power, for example a government cannot just come into power and immediately abuse a minority without breaking the constitution. So it can be said, that in general a constitution is important for the people as it shields them from the powers of government.