The multitude of defining the concept of security is related to the fact that representatives of various fields of science describe and perceive this phenomenon from the point of view of terminology, own knowledge, as well as from the scope of their discipline. For many security is a belief that you are out of the reach of any threat. Based on the Copenhagen school theory, the essence of the objective and subjective understanding of security was emphasized. Against this background, the movement of people was analyzed as a security issue. Poles living in Great Britain are more often in contact with this issue than in their country of origin. The scale of threats is extremely different. For Poles migrating to the UK, the most dangerous threats appear to be in the social sphere. The aim of the article is to analyze the phenomenon of Polish migration to Great Britain after 2004. Additionally, the process of describing security and its transition from the sphere of theory to practice was attempted. Although in the open public space, on city streets, parks and squares, there are personal threats related to crimes, as well as to social threats – attacks and assaults caused by frustrated and aggressive groups or individuals, Poles feel safe. Despite knowing about terrorism or manifestations of social or cultural phobias, Poles migrate to Great Britain. In addition, the article attempts to prove that the technological extension of public space leads to a sense of greater security.

Od kilku dekad, nie tylko w Wielkiej Brytanii, obserwować można spadające zainteresowanie obywateli uczestnictwem w polityce i symptomy kryzysu demokracji przedstawicielskiej. Za jeden ze sposobów przeciwdziałania temu zjawisku uważa się wykorzystanie nowych technologii. Z jednej strony ich upowszechnienie umożliwia obywatelom szeroki dostęp do informacji, z drugiej rozszerza oferowane im możliwości udziału i wpływania na decyzje polityczne. Celem artykułu jest omówienie i analiza polityki kolejnych brytyjskich rządów dotyczącej wykorzystania Internetu do budowania skuteczniejszych kanałów komunikacji na poziomie lokalnym w Anglii i wzmocnienia demokracji. Wykorzystane metody badawcze to przede wszystkim analiza dokumentów oraz źródeł wtórnych. Szczególna uwaga została skupiona na analizie regulacji dotyczących wprowadzenia i rozwoju na poziomie lokalnym jednego z najpopularniejszych mechanizmów e-demokracji w Wielkiej Brytanii, który doczekał się regulacji ustawowej – elektronicznych petycji.

18 czerwca 1941 roku Turcja podpisała z III Rzeszą układ o nieagresji. Wydarzenie to spotkało się z krytycznym przyjęciem ze strony Wielkiej Brytanii. W Londynie pojawiły się obawy o zmianę polityki tureckiej, której kurs do tej pory nastawiony był na bliską współpracę z aliantami.
Cztery dni później III Rzesza zaatakowała Związek Radziecki. Reakcja rządu brytyjskiego była błyskawiczna. Winston Churchill podjął decyzję o udzieleniu pomocy napadniętemu, puszczając w niepamięć prawie dwa lata ścisłej współpracy niemiecko-radzieckiej. Ten krok z kolei wywołał niepokój w Ankarze, która uważała, że polityka jej północnego sąsiada zagraża suwerenności i integralności terytorialnej Turcji. Obawiano się, że rodząca się współpraca brytyjsko-radziecka może odbyć się kosztem państwa tureckiego.
Z końcem czerwca 1941 r. brytyjska polityka zagraniczna stanęła zatem przed dwoma ważnymi wyzwaniami. Dążąc do utrzymania przyjaznych relacji z Turcją, Brytyjczycy z jednej strony musieli przeciwdziałać zbliżeniu niemiecko- tureckiemu, a z drugiej przekonać władze tureckie, że brytyjska współpraca ze Związkiem Sowieckim nie będzie stanowić zagrożenia dla interesów tureckich. Powyższe cele wyznaczyły główne kierunki działań dyplomacji brytyjskiej wobec Turcji na następne półtora roku.
W pierwszym przypadku odniesiono połowiczny sukces. Co prawda Turcja nie została objęta niemiecką strefą wpływów, ale dyplomatom brytyjskim nie udało się storpedować turecko-niemieckiej umowy gospodarczej, a zwłaszcza jej najważniejszego punktu, czyli przywrócenia eksportu chromu do III Rzeszy. Brytyjczycy jedynie opóźnili dostawy dzięki wyegzekwowaniu od rządu tureckiego przestrzegania zawartego na początku 1940 roku porozumienia, którego postanowienia obowiązywały do końca 1942 roku.
W drugim przypadku Brytyjczycy uczynili wszystko co było w ich mocy, aby rozwiać obawy tureckie. Najpierw w sierpniu 1941 roku przekonali władze Związku Sowieckiego do wydania oświadczenia, w którym deklarowano przestrzeganie integralności terytorialnej Turcji. Następnie wiosną 1942 roku, kiedy negocjowany był układ brytyjsko-radziecki, Moskwa i Londyn potwierdziły wcześniejsze zobowiązania. Należy jednak zauważyć, że dyplomacja brytyjska nie ustrzegła się przed popełnieniem kilku błędów, które mogły zwiększyć podejrzenia ze strony rządu tureckiego. Najpoważniejszym z nich było niepoinformowanie Turków o przygotowaniach do brytyjsko-radzieckiej interwencji w Iranie, do której doszło pod koniec sierpnia 1941 roku.

The article is focused on the political and economic relations between Poland and Great Britain in last three decades. In first part of the article it was introduced the evolution of the most important political events in bilateral relations and convergent and divergent matters relates to the business of both states before and after the obtainment by the Poland of the membership in NATO and the European Union. Asymmetry among both countries in the political and economic aspect was also underlined. In second part of the article, the attention was concentrated on the analysis of mutual economic relations, in this the growth of trade turnover, services and investments. Consequences for Poland connected with the exit of Great Britain from European Union become also approximate. Four principal conclusions were introduced in the end of the article.

The role of Harold Macmillan in the work of the Assembly of the Council of Europe between 1949 and 1951

European issues were obviously very close to Harold Macmillan’s heart from the beginning of his political path, which goes back to 1924. This paper looks at the activities of Harold Macmillan in the Assembly of the Council of Europe between 1949 and 1951 and discusses his views on European cooperation.

The article is devoted to the problem of further steps that Great Britain could take to break the stalemate in which it found itself after June 2016 when the British decided to leave the European Union. Despite making this decision, it turned out that its implementation was unexpectedly difficult, which in turn caused a political crisis in Great Britain that has not been seen in this country for a long time. The aim of the article is to try to find answers to two research questions. First of all, could the Brexit process – both from a legal and political point of view – have been stopped and reversed, for example, by holding a second referendum? Secondly, whether, since Brexit has become a fact, we can expect a quick return of Great Britain to the European Union (“Breturn”). Using the method of institutional and legal analysis and the content analysis method, the Author tries to prove the thesis that the idea of a second referendum seemed unlikely, and hence – Brexit was rather inevitable. As for “Breturn” – this scenario also looks unrealistic, as it would involve various legal and political obstacles as well as practical inconveniences for Great Britain.

The One-in, One-out Principle as the Limit of Legislative Interference into the Sphere of Freedom of Economic Activity

The article deals with the issue of the limit of legislative interference in the sphere of freedom of economic activity, defined by the one-in, one-out principle, introduced at the turn of 2010 and 2011 in Great Britain, in relation to the issue of restricting the freedom of economic activity in the light of art. 22 and art. 31 s. 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 2 April 1997.

Brexit Negotiation Process in David Cameron and Theresa May’s Policy

Great Britain’s decision to leave the European Union (aka Brexit) is one of the most significant events in the history of European integration. It is also the first event in the history of the Community, yet not the only one proposed by the UK government. This article aims at the analysis of political activity of British Prime Ministers: David Cameron and Theresa May related to the United Kingdom’s leaving the European Union structures. British Government’s decision was taken after the referendum, which was held on June 23, 2016, followed by invoking Article 50 of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty. Consequences of Brexit are highly dependent on the results of negotiations, although most definitely they will have political, economic and social implications. The most important conclusions are contained in the summary.

Commonwealth Realms as a Relic of the Past. Change of the Political System in Barbados

After 70 years of Queen Elizabeth II’s Commonwealth Realms reign, only 15 countries remain, counting the United Kingdom. Barbados gained complete autonomy, becoming a republic after 55 years of independence. The purpose of this paper is to provide an outline of the process that took place in Barbados, from the time the British decided to settle on the Island, until it became a republic. The main research method used by the author, is source analysis and the point of reference is the Barbados Constitution Amendment Act of 28.09.2021, whereby from 30.11.2021, Barbados becomes a republic and all duties previously exercised by the Governor-General are exercised by the President.

The freedom of the press is one of the basic guarantees of a democratic state and, at the same time, a guarantee of political rights. After 2008, when the great financial crisis occurred, the Member States of the European Union began to significantly limit the rights and freedoms of citizens, including freedom of the press. The introduced restrictions are characteristic of a neo-militant democracy. However, they sometimes become a tool in the hands of antidemocrats. The aim of the article is to check how and why over the years, between successive crises, i.e., financial crisis, the so-called refugee crisis, the coronavirus pandemic, freedom of the press was restricted in Ireland and Great Britain. These are the countries in which initially the political and social effects of the economic crisis were not felt, but later rapid regression was observed. By using content analysis based on reports from the Reporters without Borders and Freedom House organizations, the study uncovers how and why the restrictions of freedom of the press changed. It locates the political structures of Ireland and Great Britain between the ideal types of neo- and quasi-militant democracy, depending on the goal of the restrictions. The research hypothesis is as follows: The restriction of freedom of the press in Ireland and the United Kingdom after 2008 shows that states are using the media system to pursue their particular interests by introducing solutions characteristic of quasi-militant democracies.

Economic relations between the European Union and Iran versus sanctions and energy security

The article provides an analysis economical and political relationship between Islamic Republic of Iran and European Union and its members countries, particularly Greece, Italy and Spain in the context of politics of energy safety. Prior to the adoption of heavy economic sanctions the EU led a double track politics towards Iran: “carrot and stick method”. The main thesis is that sanction on Iran hurts more this country then EU but in some cases: Greece, Italy, Spain could have problems with new energy partners. Iran before sanctions was one of the main European suppliers of oil and natural gas but not for all EU, only for few countries. There are lists of main exporters and importers Iranians oil and natural gas in EU and the world. Additionally a list of EU sanctions on Iran has been attached. Additionally article presents roots of piece of Middle Eastern enemy history relationships between Great Britain, USA and Iran.