El Reino Unido es un país de países, es decir un conjunto de países, exactamente cuatro: Inglaterra, Escocia, Gales e Irlanda del Norte. Esas cuatro naciones conforman la totalidad del Reino Unido, que es un Estado soberano unitario cuyo régimen de gobierno es la Monarquía parlamentaria bicameral, que tiene sede en Londres.
Queda claro, entonces, que el Reino Unido es mucho más que solo Inglaterra, aunque de hecho Inglaterra sea la nación más poblada y poderosa del Reino Unido. Pero, ¿cuál es la diferencia entre el Reino Unido y Gran Bretaña exactamente? La diferencia es meramente geográfica.
Ukip has swept the European elections, taking 4,351,204 votes, ahead of Labour by around 300,000 votes., roughly the same number of votes that Ed Miliband’s party bested the Conservatives by.
David Cameron was beaten in the third place for the first time in living memory, with his coalition partner the Lib Dems losing all but one of their 10 MEPs, their vote share down by 6.8%.
A ballot box containing votes in local elections is emptied at Trinity School in Croydon
The BNP suffered annihilation, losing 5.1% of the vote and losing their MEP, leader Nick Griffin.
With dozens of parties on the ballot paper across the country, all managed to pick up a few thousand votes. In last place was Liberty GB, with a mere 2,494 votes. The tiny party was created by “disgruntled members” of the BNP, according to the Guardian.
UK Independence Party 27.5% (+11%) 23 MEPs (+10)
Labour 25.4% (+9.7%) 18 MEPs (+7)
Conservative 23.9% (-3.8%) 18 MEPs (-7)
Green 7.9% (-0.75%) 3 MEPs (+1)
Liberal Democrat 6.9% (-6.8%) 1 MEP (-9)
Plaid Cymru 0.7% (-0.2%) 1 MEP
Scottish National Party 2.4% (-0.3%) 2 MEPs
An Independence From Europe 1.5% (new party)
BNP 1.1% (-5.1%) 0 MEPs (-2)
English Democrats 0.8% (-1.%)
Christian Peoples Alliance 0.3% (-1.3%)
NO2EU 0.2% (-0.8%)
4 Freedoms Party (UK EPP) 0.18%
We Demand a Referendum 0.15%
National Health Action Party 0.15%
Animal Welfare Party 0.13%
Britain First 0.13%
Yorkshire First 0.12%
Europeans Party 0.07%
The Peace Party 0.06%
Pirate Party 0.05%
Harmony Party 0.05 %
Communities United Party 0.04%
Socialist Party of Great Britain 0.04%
National Liberal Party 0.04%
Socialist Equality Party 0.03%
Socialist Labour Party 0.03%
The Roman Party 0.02%
Liberty GB 0.02%
The MEPs Elected Across The UK
1. Patrick O’Flynn (UKIP)
2. Victoria Ford (Con)
3. Richard Howitt (Lab)
4. Stuart Agnew (UKIP)
5. Geoffrey Van Orden (Con)
6. Tim Aker (UKIP)
7. David Bannerman (Con)
East Midlands Region
1. Roger Helmer (UKIP)
2. Emma McClarkin (Con)
3. Glenis Willmott (Lab)
4. Margaret Parker (UKIP)
5. Andrew Lewer (Con)
1. Claude Moraes (Lab)
2. Syed Kamall (Con)
3. Mary Honeyball (Lab)
4. Gerard Batten (UKIP)
5. Lucy Anderson (Lab)
6. Charles Tannock (Con)
7. Seb Dance (Lab)
8. Jean Lambert (Green)
Farage: UKIP has election ‘momentum’
Eurosceptic ‘earthquake’ rocks EU
Under pressure Clegg: I won’t quit
There are local council elections in England and Northern Ireland – but the big one this year is the European election on the same day. It is the only time outside of a general election when all 46 million voters can take part. The European Parliament is the only directly elected institution in the European Union. So this is your chance to decide who represents you in Brussels and Strasbourg (Yes, they still shuttle between the two parliament buildings at regular intervals).
How do I know if I can vote?
Most people should have received polling cards through the post. To be eligible to vote, you had to be on the electoral register by 6 May. Anyone over 18 on 22 May who is a British citizen living in the UK, a qualifying Commonwealth citizen living in the UK, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland living in the UK, or an EU citizen living in the UK can vote if there is a local election where they live. British citizens living overseas can also vote in the European elections provided they have registered as overseas electors. EU citizens living in the UK can only vote in the European Parliament elections if they don’t vote in their home member state.
The concept of democracy in politics is still seen by some countries as “the best and most effective type of government” because it provides with the same opportunities and the same equality to all its members. However even when in Western countries democracy is effective and it seems to be partially fair; democracy still has a long way to come in developing countries. This essay will discuss Is democracy such a good thing?
The name of the greatest Greek invention is today known as democracy and had the principle of Isonomy which refers to the same rules for everyone. Therefore there was nobody up the law and obedience was a global concept. Nevertheless, democracy was born between conflicts and instead of solving them, they appear to grow partially even at a wide range in the 21th century. The reason is the more freedom we have the less tranquillity we live in. Moreover, Finer (1997) was correct in acknowledging the Athenian contribution to Western politics: “the Greeks invented two of the most potent political features of our present age: they invented the very idea of citizen- as opposed to subject- and they invented democracy”.
Even so, to answer if democracy is such a good thing is necessary to define the vices and virtues of such regime so we can have a clear view of what we are dealing with.
In the aftermath of the Second World War, the United Nations reflected the hope for a just and peaceful global community. It is the only global institution with the legitimacy that derives from universal membership. However, in the last decades there is still the debate about the role of this organization in International Relations; this essay will discuss: The United Nations is nothing more than an arena for inter-state power politics.
In order to answer this question correctly is believed two concepts most arise beforehand.
First, The United Nations: which is an international organization founded in 1945 after the Second World War by 51 countries committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights. The work of the United Nations reaches every corner of the globe. Although best known for peacekeeping, peacebuilding, conflict prevention and humanitarian assistance the organization works on a broad range of fundamental issues, from sustainable development, environment and refugees protection, disaster relief, counter terrorism, disarmament and non-proliferation, to promoting democracy, human rights, governance, economic and social development and international health, clearing landmines, expanding food production, and more, in order to achieve its goals and coordinate efforts for a safer world for this and future generations.
Second, Power politics: is essentially a way of understanding the world of international Relations: nations compete for the world’s resources and it is to a nation’s advantage to be manifestly able to harm others. It prioritizes national self-interest over the interest of other nations or the international community.
In recent years the debate about party politics in the UK have been broadly discussed for several reasons, some argued that two-party politics in the UK is over and now it have been replaced by multi-party politics; in the other hand some argued that two party politics is not over and it may remain for the next years to come. This essay will discuss “The era of two-party politics in the UK is over.” Do you agree? If you do, what is replacing it: multi-party politics or no-party politics?
Political parties are now complex multilevel organizations, united by a common identity and, sometimes, shared objectives. ‘A party is not a community but a collection of communities, a union of small groups dispersed throughout the country and linked by co-ordinating institutions’ as Duverger described. Now, the question for the twenty-first century is whether we are witnessing a crisis of parties or merely a change in their structure.
Party politics in Britain date from the nineteenth century, and by 1900 systems of organization and electoral competition were well established. A dual system of Conservatives and Liberals was modified in the early twentieth century by the rise of the Labour party and a three-party system existed until about 1931 when the eclipse of the Liberals ushered in a new two-party system. In addition, after 1945 the two parties, Conservative and Labour, totally dominated until the 1970s when the Liberals revived and, in Scotland and Wales, nationalist parties enjoyed a short-lived boom. By the 1980’s two-party politics appeared spent as the Liberals allied to a new party, the Social Democratic Party (SDP), and gained 25.9 per cent of the Great Britain vote in the 1983 election, only just behind Labour.  So is revealed by history and facts that even when two-party politics remains and they still are a pillar in UK politics they suffer “up and downs” and that basis makes many scholars to believe that the political system is changing into multi-party system. However it does not mean a loss of power by the main parties that rule Britain. Today most of British history over the last 200 years has appeared to be a two-party duopoly Whigs and Tories, then Liberals and Conservatives and more recently Labour and Conservatives. But still a two-party system that appears to sustain. And as a matter of fact most of the seats in the House of Commons (and sometimes nearly all of them) have belonged to the two major parties since 1945. It could be argued, however, that “Britain’s two-party system was in part a product of an electoral system which severely penalizes third parties, particularly those (like the Liberal Democrats) whose support is not concentrated in particular areas”. 
John Major and Margaret Thatcher.
In United Kingdom politics during the years of 1990-1994, John Mayor administration has been argued to be a failure because it was unsuccessful in different sectors. For the Conservative party; leadership has been a feature since at least the late eighties with the removal of Margaret Thatcher. Her successor, John Major, has a difficult leadership faced by rebellions, particularly over Europe, and the party appeared unmanageable by the time. On the other side, it has been argued that it was not a completely failure as he handled the issue of domestic policy with Ireland successfully. This essay will discuss: Why was the Major Government such a failure?
How far does Britain’s special relationship with the US constrain its foreign policy?
The ‘special relationship’ is a phrase used to describe close political, diplomatic, cultural and historical relations between the United Kingdom and the United States. The term was first used in 1946 in a speech made by Winston Churchill. In recent decades, it has been argued that the’ special relationship’ is about control and how to keep both interests aligned. Today, is to believe that to a very large extent Britain special relationship with the United States constrained its foreign policy. This essay will discuss: How far does Britain’s special relationship with the US constrain its foreign policy?
As a concept foreign policy aims to ensure the security of its people and territory, promotes its aims in the international arena, and encourage co-operation with other countries. The special relationship between Britain and United States is close and robust because British and American values are essentially the same, which explains why national interests are often aligned. ‘The US-UK relationship is strong because it delivers for both of us. The alliance is not sustained by our historical ties or blind loyalty. This is a partnership of choice that serves our national interests.’ Still, in many aspects for both parties foreign policy is dependant one on each other. At the moment, it is evident that there is a distinctive relationship between Britain and the United States, but it exists at the top and bottom with very little in between. At the top, the common language and a degree of shared relationship and culture between leaders has clearly provided Britain with some extra diplomatic leverage with US policy-makers. At the bottom, there is a degree of detailed co-operation and understanding between the armed services of the two countries and their intelligence organizations. However, Britain and the US perhaps understood one another much less well than they assumed, despite the link of a common language. Britain was a ‘little island’, the US a subcontinent; Britain believed in the committed to the welfare state and massive state intervention in the economy; the US, at least in theory, remained committed to private enterprise. ‘Anti-Americanism in Britain was matched by certain anti-British sentiments in the US, especially among the Irish.’