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.
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”. 
Hoy 14 de Febrero se conmemora el día de San Valentín también llamado día del amor. Para todos aquellos que tengan la gracia de disfrutar estar acompañados de la mujer/hombre de su vida o ‘un peor es nada’ hoy se recuerda ese sentimiento tan humano llamado amor. Y es que a la final; eso es lo que importa. El amor: por quienes te rodean, por lo que haces, por lo que eres y por donde estas; que a su vez tiene como consecuencia que las demás cosas alrededor de ti fluyan como deben fluir y contribuyan a tu crecimiento como ser humano. Pues sabemos que no hay nada más humano que el amor. Pero ¿que tal el amor entre países?.. ¿Existe? Las organizaciones sin fines de lucro y ayuda humanitaria lo hacen…..por amor? En este aspecto escritores como Larry Diamond (The Spirit of Democracy); afirman que los países actúan principalmente según sus intereses. Y que las relaciones diplomáticas no creen en amor sino en bienestar y cooperación ya sea nacional o internacional. En todos los sentidos se busca hacia la paz; es lo que se quiere sustentar a corto y largo plazo en cualquier nación pero… ¿amor? No me parece. ¿Por qué? Porque entre países se hace es guerra, no se puede hace el amor. Veamos que sucede en el mundo acerca del ‘amor’ entre países actualmente:
Since its beginnings armed humanitarian intervention has represented a dilemma to war, peace and international ethics because it involves the moral issue of when to intervene and if these interventions are justifiable. Moreover there are the different theories in favour and against of armed intervention. This essay will discuss: Can armed humanitarian intervention ever be justified?
In order to make this essay clearer is to believe that a couple of definitions should be made beforehand; humanitarian intervention and armed intervention. Firstly, ‘humanitarian intervention is traditionally defined as the use of force by states to protect human rights. This definition presumes that states should do the intervening in order to maintain civil rights and of course the welfare and peace in society’.Nowadays, it is sometimes argued that this traditional definition is obsolete because humanitarian intervention is increasingly a matter of collective action under UN auspices, not action undertaken by states acting on their own authority and under their own law. Secondly, we speak of armed intervention when that exercise involves the use of military force. An armed intervention is humanitarian when its aim is to protect innocent people who are not nationals of the intervening state from violence perpetrated or permitted by the government of the target state. Additionally, armed intervention to stop a massacre is likely to be only the first of many measures needed to restore order to a chaotic society and prevent subsequent massacres. If prevention is important, then is to believe that the challenge for humanitarian policy is to move from responding to humanitarian crises to forestalling them.
This sunday 15th 2012 I had the chance to enjoy one of the most exciting and breath taking experiences known to man. Supercars, cars, more cars and of course… women. What a good mix isnt it? I wanted to take the opportunity and share a little my experience. Enjoy!