The subject of this study is the evolution of British public policy between 1900 and 2010 with to the special focus on budgetary, monetary and social policy, as well as policy towards the public sector. This period was characterized by a steady, yet non-linear rise in economic and social activity of the state. Sudden increases were caused by one of three categories of events: wars, economic crises and changes at the highest levels of government. As a result, the history of British public policy in between 1900 and 2010 is divided into the following stages: 1) 1900-1931 - decline of the liberal era; 2) 1931-1951 - steady increase in the state's economic activity; 3) 1951-1979 - systemic stabilization at a high level of state involvement in economic and social issues; 4) 1997-2007 - attempt to return to economic liberalism; 5) 2007-2010 - a period of volatility and the search for new public policy principles.
The results of the referendum regarding the UK leaving the European Union indicated that the majority of British citizens, who are also citizens of the EU, decided to leave the European Union. The citizens' decision has serious legal consequences arising from Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. This is the first case of a state leaving the European Union, which raises many questions. In the presented material, the institution of referendum is being analyzed as a form of direct democracy as well as, in this context, the effects of Brexit affecting directly the citizens of Great Britain – ex-citizens of the European Union. ; The results of the referendum regarding the UK leaving the European Union indicated that the majority of British citizens, who are also citizens of the EU, decided to leave the European Union. The citizens' decision has serious legal consequences arising from Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. This is the first case of a state leaving the European Union, which raises many questions. In the presented material, the institution of referendum is being analyzed as a form of direct democracy as well as, in this context, the effects of Brexit affecting directly the citizens of Great Britain – ex-citizens of the European Union.
In 2007 John N. Gray, announced that humanity was just entering the era of the post-apocalypse, an phase which will allow it to free itself from the utopias based on the Apocalypse, in his opinion, the primary source of all totalitarianisms. To see if this British political scientist is perhaps a prophet of the post-apocalyptic left, I turn my attention to Florence at the end of the fifteenth century where the religious reformer Savonarola was active playing the role of a prophet of the left, still apocalyptic.
Lausanne Peace Treaty did not solve contradictions between Great Britain and Turkey. Political relations between those two countries remained strained. The Kemalists could not forget that London had been the main supporter of Greece during the Liberation War (Kurtuluş Savaşı). On the other hand, the British thought Turkey to be a seasonal state and were alarmed when Kemalists had established a close link with the Soviet Russia. However, the most serious problem was a dispute over the possession of the vilayet of Mosul. The territory of Mosul was held by Turkey until the First World War. In 1918 it was occupied by Britain. In 1920 it was assigned to Iraq, which had become a British mandate. However Kemalists refused to relinquish their claims to the territory of Mosul, which was specified in the National Pact (Misakı Millı) as Turkish one. For that reason the question of Mosul remained in a state of deadlock, even after the Lausanne Treaty had been signed. Bilateral negotiations between Great Britain and Turkey did not solve the problem, and the matter was referred to the League of Nations. In December 1925 the Council of the League of Nations decided that the vilayet of Mosul was an integraf part of Iraq. Finally the dispute over that territory ended in June 1926, when the border treaty between Iraq and Turkey was signed. However the case of Mosul cast a shadow over relations between Angora and London at least until 1929.
Lausanne Peace Treaty did not solve contradictions between Great Britain and Turkey. Political relations between those two countries remained strained. The Kemalists could not forget that London had been the main supporter of Greece during the Liberation War (Kurtuluş Savaşı). On the other hand, the British thought Turkey to be a seasonal state and were alarmed when Kemalists had established a close link with the Soviet Russia. However, the most serious problem was a dispute over the possession of the vilayet of Mosul. The territory of Mosul was held by Turkey until the First World War. In 1918 it was occupied by Britain. In 1920 it was assigned to Iraq, which had become a British mandate. However Kemalists refused to relinquish their claims to the territory of Mosul, which was specified in the National Pact (Misakı Millı) as Turkish one. For that reason the question of Mosul remained in a state of deadlock, even after the Lausanne Treaty had been signed. Bilateral negotiations between Great Britain and Turkey did not solve the problem, and the matter was referred to the League of Nations. In December 1925 the Council of the League of Nations decided that the vilayet of Mosul was an integraf part of Iraq. Finally the dispute over that territory ended in June 1926, when the border treaty between Iraq and Turkey was signed. However the case of Mosul cast a shadow over relations between Angora and London at least until 1929.
The article presents the analysis of activities of politicians associated with the Labour Party undertaken in favour of leaving the European Union by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the context of the June 2016 referendum campaign. There are presented the historical roots of the critique of European Communities drawn from this ideological-political perspective (the opposition towards the European Economic Community in 1975 referendum), but above all the argumentation used more than four decades later by the opponents of staying in the EU. On the basis of conducted analysis, the specific elements of the main ideological poles that shape left-wing critique of the EU with regard to the British example have been distinguished.
Europeanism exceeds the political and social mindset, it also provides the way of thinking about Europe, the Europeans, their identity, culture and homogeneity, which is paradoxically constituted on the basis of heterogeneity ("unity in diversity"). One may distinguishes two contrary approaches towards the UE: Euroscepticism and Euroenthusiasm The first orientation is very vivid in the British society and it is reflected not only in the words of politicians but also in the mood of the nation, expressed in the Brexit referendum. The latter orientation is common among Poles who enjoy the privilege of joining to the exclusive club. The European and citizenship education reflect these antagonistic approaches. The aim of the paper is an attempt to reconstruct and analyse the contemporary debate on citizenship education in the perspective of European Union. The analyse of educational trends about Europe and Europeanism is significant if Brexit is taking into the consideration. ; Europeanism exceeds the political and social mindset, it also provides the way of thinking about Europe, the Europeans, their identity, culture and homogeneity, which is paradoxically constituted on the basis of heterogeneity ("unity in diversity"). One may distinguishes two contrary approaches towards the UE: Euroscepticism and Euroenthusiasm The first orientation is very vivid in the British society and it is reflected not only in the words of politicians but also in the mood of the nation, expressed in the Brexit referendum. The latter orientation is common among Poles who enjoy the privilege of joining to the exclusive club. The European and citizenship education reflect these antagonistic approaches. The aim of the paper is an attempt to reconstruct and analyse the contemporary debate on citizenship education in the perspective of European Union. The analyse of educational trends about Europe and Europeanism is significant if Brexit is taking into the consideration.
The aim of the article is to investigate a cooperation between the Members of the European Parliament in the European Conservatives and Reformist Group. ECR Group was formed in the European Parliament in 2009 and the biggest parties in ECR are the British Conservative Party and Polish Law and Justice. United Kingdom will leave the European Union and the question is whether the ECR group is enough institutionalised to survive after Brexit? The Author of the article uses the analysis of the scholar literature, reports and ECR's political programs, and tries to find answers to the following research questions: how did the conservative parties cooperate within the ECR? What is the internal structure of the ECR group? What positions were held by ECR in the European Parliament?
The paper attempts to address the question of whether the prime ministerial system has already emerged as a separate system of governance that differs from classical systems, and whether it can no longer be treated as a certain sub-class in an extensive range of parliamentary systems, but rather as a new type of system in its own right. The principal issue appears to be whether the inherent properties of the prime ministerial variety of governance are sufficiently distinct, significant and different from the parliamentary system, however broadly understood, to give the former a status of a separate governance system from the methodological point of view. It should be observed that the contemporary British system, which serves as a foundation for our deliberations on the prime ministerial form of governance, has deviated from the classical or typical parliamentary system far enough to actually take the direction of a separate system of governance, namely prime ministerial governance. Firstly, this is evidenced by the removal of the monarch from the political system and establishing executive power as a virtually one-element entity concentrated in the Cabinet, and embodied by its leader. Secondly, the figure of Prime Minister is highly emphasized as he is elected 'under the guise of common elections' and he successfully monopolizes the work of his entire Cabinet, becoming a certain 'trademark' of this Cabinet, which is well supported by the principle of joint accountability of all Cabinet members, a principle that is exceptionally strictly and consistently implemented in the British system. The ongoing politological processes that tend to presidentialize and personalize politics are only accelerating these changes and making them even more apparent. The consequence in Britain is that it is the Prime Minister who accrues the power to govern and he by no means falls under the principle of classical parliamentary systems, where the government leader is only "the first among equals". Thirdly, the House of Commons has practically lost its controlling power over the Cabinet, as primarily evidenced in the absence of a vote of no confidence, which would serve as a tool of political accountability of executive power before the legislative, the essence of any form of parliamentary governance. Fourthly, in a highly specific, deeply endemic party system which entails that various links between government and parliament typical of the parliamentary style of democracy are de facto transferred onto the internal party stage, this to an extent also explains the relevance of the division between government and opposition, a division which is neither as clear, nor as far-reaching as in the case of other parliamentary systems. All this allows us to conclude that the British system is sufficiently different to be deemed new in comparison to a typical or classical parliamentary system. The transformations that have taken place there have gone far beyond the proper, or classical, model of parliamentary governance thus forming not only a sub-class, but a separate type (or model) of governance.
The paper attempts to address the question of whether the prime ministerial system has already emerged as a separate system of governance that differs from classical systems, and whether it can no longer be treated as a certain sub-class in an extensive range of parliamentary systems, but rather as a new type of system in its own right. The principal issue appears to be whether the inherent properties of the prime ministerial variety of governance are sufficiently distinct, significant and different from the parliamentary system, however broadly understood, to give the former a status of a separate governance system from the methodological point of view. It should be observed that the contemporary British system, which serves as a foundation for our deliberations on the prime ministerial form of governance, has deviated from the classical or typical parliamentary system far enough to actually take the direction of a separate system of governance, namely prime ministerial governance. Firstly, this is evidenced by the removal of the monarch from the political system and establishing executive power as a virtually one-element entity concentrated in the Cabinet, and embodied by its leader. Secondly, the figure of Prime Minister is highly emphasized as he is elected 'under the guise of common elections' and he successfully monopolizes the work of his entire Cabinet, becoming a certain 'trademark' of this Cabinet, which is well supported by the principle of joint accountability of all Cabinet members, a principle that is exceptionally strictly and consistently implemented in the British system. The ongoing politological processes that tend to presidentialize and personalize politics are only accelerating these changes and making them even more apparent. The consequence in Britain is that it is the Prime Minister who accrues the power to govern and he by no means falls under the principle of classical parliamentary systems, where the government leader is only "the first among equals". Thirdly, the House of Commons has practically lost its controlling power over the Cabinet, as primarily evidenced in the absence of a vote of no confidence, which would serve as a tool of political accountability of executive power before the legislative, the essence of any form of parliamentary governance. Fourthly, in a highly specific, deeply endemic party system which entails that various links between government and parliament typical of the parliamentary style of democracy are de facto transferred onto the internal party stage, this to an extent also explains the relevance of the division between government and opposition, a division which is neither as clear, nor as far-reaching as in the case of other parliamentary systems. All this allows us to conclude that the British system is sufficiently different to be deemed new in comparison to a typical or classical parliamentary system. The transformations that have taken place there have gone far beyond the proper, or classical, model of parliamentary governance thus forming not only a sub-class, but a separate type (or model) of governance.
Publikacja recenzowana / Peer-reviewed publication ; Relacje między Francją a Wielką Brytanią kształtuje odwieczna rywalizacja regionalna i aspiracje maksymalizacji wpływów międzynarodowych, ale także bliskość i powiązania gospodarczo-polityczne związane z tymi aspiracjami. Podstawą współpracy francusko-brytyjskiej jest podobna percepcja w kwestiach strategicznych. Oba państwa podobnie rozumieją wyzwania polityczne, gospodarcze, kulturalne i są ważnymi partnerami "skazanymi" na kooperację militarną. Brexit wywołał polityczny wstrząs wśród europejskich liderów, inicjując pragmatyczną refleksję nad przyszłością UE. W Paryżu decyzję o Brexicie określono jako z jednej strony bolesną (straty gospodarcze), z drugiej jako szansę na przekształcenie UE zgodnie z francuską wizją integracji (koniec brytyjskiego weta wobec przyspieszania integracji). Niewątpliwie Brexit wzmocni w UE oś Paryż–Berlin i przyspieszy ściślejszą współpracę gospodarczą i militarną. W praktyce jednak wyjście Wielkiej Brytanii z UE osłabi realny wymiar WPBiO i może stać się źródłem długoterminowego zróżnicowania "projektu europejskiego" w oparciu o różne prędkości integracji. ; Relations between France and Great Britain are formed by the eternal regional rivalry and aspirations to maximize international influence, but also the proximity and political – economic ties linked with those aspirations. The basis of Franco-British cooperation is similar perception of strategic issues. Both countries have the same understanding of the political, economic, cultural challenges and are important partners "doomed" on military cooperation. Brexit caused political shock among European leaders, initiating pragmatic reflection on the future of the EU . In Paris, the decision about Brexit was defined as painful the one hand (due to economic losses) and as an opportunity to transform the EU in line with the French vision of integration on the other (due to the end of the British veto towards acceleration of integration). Brexit undoubtedly will strengthen in the EU the Paris-Berlin axis will and accelerate closer economic and military cooperation. In practice, however, the output of Great Britain from the EU will weaken the real dimension of the CSDP and can become a source of long-term differentiation of the "European project" based on different speeds of integration.
Działania bojowe podczas konfliktu w Libii na długo pozostaną przedmiotem specjalistycznych analiz czy też prac naukowych. Operacja ta była bez wątpienia ważnym sprawdzianem zdolności bojowych w wymiarze narodowym, sojuszniczym, militarnym i organizacyjnym. Celem artykułu jest przeanalizowanie powyższych zmiennych, głównie z perspektywy amerykańskiej i brytyjskiej. Dobór obszaru problemowego nie wynika jedynie z łatwej dostępności do materiału źródłowego, ale również z faktu istotnego zaangażowania obydwu stron w konflikt. W przypadku Brytyjczyków otrzymujemy także niezwykle interesującą i wartościową możliwość przeanalizowania skutków istotnej reformy, czy też zmiany koncepcji brytyjskich sił zbrojnych w ramach Strategic Defence and Security Review z 2010 roku. Celem artykułu jest także próba oceny znaczenia amerykańskiego zaangażowania w konflikt, widziany z obydwu stron Atlantyku. Wreszcie analizie poddany zostanie sam zamysł operacji, podobieństwa i różnice względem podobnych operacji tego typu, przeprowadzonych w przeszłości, a także twierdzenie, że działania w Libii stanowią modelowy przykład dla realizacji "konfliktów przyszłości" w regionie. ; The conflict in Libya will definitely be a topic of various future analytical and academic analyses for a very long time. The activities conducted there undoubtedly can be seen as a significant test of combat readiness both in the national and allied dimension, and interesting also from the organizational and purely military perspective. The main goal of the paper is to analyze the aspects mentioned above, especially from the British and American perspectives. The availability of the source material is not the only reason for defining the field of research in this way. Both countries were strongly involved in the conflict. In the case of Great Britain, we have a highly interesting and valuable chance to analyze the first outcome of a very important change in British strategic thinking, formulated in the Strategic Defense and Security Review of 2010. The other goal of the paper is to look at American involvement in the conflict and its meaning as seen from both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. Finally, the analysis aims to emphasize the similarities and differences regarding the former cases of military engagement of both countries, and to check if the Libyan conflict can be seen as a typical conflict in the region.
Działania bojowe podczas konfliktu w Libii na długo pozostaną przedmiotem specjalistycznych analiz czy też prac naukowych. Operacja ta była bez wątpienia ważnym sprawdzianem zdolności bojowych w wymiarze narodowym, sojuszniczym, militarnym i organizacyjnym. Celem artykułu jest przeanalizowanie powyższych zmiennych, głównie z perspektywy amerykańskiej i brytyjskiej. Dobór obszaru problemowego nie wynika jedynie z łatwej dostępności do materiału źródłowego, ale również z faktu istotnego zaangażowania obydwu stron w konflikt. W przypadku Brytyjczyków otrzymujemy także niezwykle interesującą i wartościową możliwość przeanalizowania skutków istotnej reformy, czy też zmiany koncepcji brytyjskich sił zbrojnych w ramach Strategic Defence and Security Review z 2010 roku. Celem artykułu jest także próba oceny znaczenia amerykańskiego zaangażowania w konflikt, widziany z obydwu stron Atlantyku. Wreszcie analizie poddany zostanie sam zamysł operacji, podobieństwa i różnice względem podobnych operacji tego typu, przeprowadzonych w przeszłości, a także twierdzenie, że działania w Libii stanowią modelowy przykład dla realizacji "konfliktów przyszłości" w regionie. ; The conflict in Libya will definitely be a topic of various future analytical and academic analyses for a very long time. The activities conducted there undoubtedly can be seen as a significant test of combat readiness both in the national and allied dimension, and interesting also from the organizational and purely military perspective. The main goal of the paper is to analyze the aspects mentioned above, especially from the British and American perspectives. The availability of the source material is not the only reason for defining the field of research in this way. Both countries were strongly involved in the conflict. In the case of Great Britain, we have a highly interesting and valuable chance to analyze the first outcome of a very important change in British strategic thinking, formulated in the Strategic Defense and Security Review of 2010. The other goal of the paper is to look at American involvement in the conflict and its meaning as seen from both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. Finally, the analysis aims to emphasize the similarities and differences regarding the former cases of military engagement of both countries, and to check if the Libyan conflict can be seen as a typical conflict in the region.
What we are witnessing now, not only in Great Britain, is that citizens are less and less interested in participation in politics. We see a crisis of representative democracy. One of the means used to fight those negative trends is the use of Information and Communication Technology. It not only enables citizens to gain a wide access to public information but also empowers them to take part in decision making. The article was written with the aim to analyze the political agenda of successive British governments pertaining to the use of the Internet in building more effective local government communication channels in English local authorities. The analyses of documents and secondary sources were conducted. Special attention was devoted to the introduction and development of electronic petition systems on the local level, as e-petitions are one of the most popular e-democracy mechanisms in Great Britain. Their use has also been laid down in law.
