By choosing to employ a workforce from outside the EU to increase staffing levels, healthcare delivered to patients across the UK could be compromised. Critical thinking about the potential consequences and solutions to the threat to public health, including in the event of no deal 500 *Theresa May said that the workers who are here will be protected? - explore A soft Brexit and a hard Brexit have impacts on healthcare professionals and their However, freedom of movement is not as damaging as a no-deal outcome. The absence of any structured legal framework will result in severe sanctions against current EU nationals living and working in the UK and will have an effect on migration to the country. It is likely that border and visa restrictions currently in place for third countries will be applied to all non-UK citizens entering the country. No deal would eliminate the possibility of retaining labor rights for workers, as the legislation derives solely from EU law. *Drug regulation and clinical trials. * Access to pharmaceuticals, technology, blood and organs for transplantation is under threat. Funding Identification of a threat to public health in the UK due to Brexit 250 Alongside a strong commitment to UK healthcare workers, UK officials tasked with negotiating the Brexit deal must ensure that at At the forefront of discussions is a financial commitment to improving the UK's health. British population and all associated sectors. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayHigh levels of patient care and population health can only be maintained and improved with a strong forward-looking vision of the disease prevention, health promotion and health threat identifications are appropriately funded. It is hoped that the UK will be able to reach a deal with the public's positive health interests at the forefront. The UK has a financially strong infrastructure and is currently one of the richest Member States (REF). It therefore does not need as much investment as other poorer states. However, the UK has still received over €3.5 billion in capital investment in the NHS since 2001. (European Investment Bank, 2017). This capital investment has enabled multiple UK and European Union based organizations to collaborate with the ultimate goal of protecting the health of all UK citizens. Economic fluctuations in the UK before and after Brexit will undoubtedly have substantial consequences for funding of the NHS. The effects of Brexit and the financial aspects of the UK's exit from the EU will directly affect individuals. When individuals travel abroad, they have arrangements to receive healthcare equivalent to that they would receive in the UK (REF). Brexit will mean that these benefits are likely to end without a strong financial structure to support them. Negotiations must continue to secure EU support to maintain protection for British nationals traveling abroad to EU countries. Even though the European Health Insurance Card excludes all pre-existing medical conditions, it will still be a major setback for those traveling to EU countries, as theywill most likely incur higher private insurance costs than they currently would (REF). This is not the only setback for UK citizens, as if you already live in one of the European countries, you would most likely also rely on this provision (REF2,15). How is it reduced through an appropriate UK-EU deal to mitigate the impact? 500 The best outcome the UK could hope for after Brexit would, as previously mentioned, be a soft Brexit, as this would allow arrangements already in place to continue. Pre-existing healthcare arrangements, financial arrangements in place relating to funding of the NHS, funding of pharmaceuticals and the importation of all necessary healthcare items such as radioactive isotopes (REFs) are likely to continue. A default in the soft Brexit plan would have implications for the economy as a whole, as it would indirectly impact funding provided through the European Investment Bank (REF). The UK Government must ensure that we achieve the best possible financial outcome for the UK that allows us to work with the EU, as we currently do, rather than isolate ourselves from any Beneficial Financial Outcomes (REFs). If a soft Brexit is not possible. If possible, the next best option would be a hard Brexit regarding funding of the UK healthcare system. Health benefits for British nationals abroad in EU countries would probably not offer the same health protection. However, a hard Brexit still leaves room for negotiation, although these negotiations must take into consideration the fact that the investments of the European Investment Bank therefore wish to finance a robust system of health benefits abroad, which nationals British people have become accustomed to receiving, must come from elsewhere. Critical thinking about the potential consequences and solutions to the threat to public health, including in the event of no deal 500. If the UK leaves the EU without reaching a deal, whether soft or harsh, it is not unreasonable to suggest that citizens of the United Kingdom would experience disruption not only to health services due to the indirect impact Brexit would have on the economy as a whole (Pollard, 2018) . There have been many academic discussions analyzing the effects a no-deal Brexit would have on the UK as well as the negative projections for the economy and overall terms (Pollard, 2018). Dhingra and Van Reenan (Dhingra, et al., 2016) suggest that household costs could increase by up to £1,700 per year. However, the figures are decisive in knowing whether a soft or hard Brexit is assured. In the event of no agreement, this amount will obviously be considerably higher. Without a deal in place, it is difficult to truly quantify the incursion of costs for UK nationals in the post-Brexit period. Dhingra and Van Reenan (Dhingra, et al., 2016) argue that the UK's major financial districts, such as the South East, would be hardest hit, with the population in these areas most at risk of financial hardship. . However, Los disagrees on what could be considered a controversial disagreement: he claims that the areas most likely to be disadvantaged are economically weaker areas, of which, ironically, the majority voted in favor of departure. A “no deal” scenario would not benefit any area and is likely to increase health inequalities within the UK population. A complementary element to this argument would be the consideration of the impactsindirect effects on the United Kingdom if no Brexit agreement is reached before the United Kingdom leaves the EU. Potential indirect implications would be the medium to long term economic effects of Brexit, as highlighted by Begg and Bachtler (2016), which could be seen as threats to public health with consequences both nationally and regionally. (Begg and Bachtler, 2016). The United Kingdom has experienced a relative economic slowdown since the 1970s compared to the United States and other European countries. The UK economy is relatively weak compared to previous centuries (McCann, 2016) and has disparate proportions, as evidenced by the growth of different geographic areas (Gardiner., et al., 2013). However, growth inequality in the UK is not directly caused by the UK's membership of the EU (McCann, 2016). The solution would therefore not be Brexit. The UK must now seek to secure a deal with its EU counterparts that would enable a rebalancing of the UK economy to help address health inequalities caused by financial pressures, both on an individual and global basis. broader national economic level (Martin., et al., 2015)In conclusion, the financial implications of Brexit are still unknown and leaving the EU will likely leave the UK poorer than it would have been if we had remained within the confines of EU tariff barriers on trade, uncertainty around investment in healthcare and whether or not the UK would remain in the European single market. Sampson (2017) agrees with this as he argues that there is considerable uncertainty about the scale of the financial implications, with plausible estimates of between 1 and 10% of the UK's per capita income (Sampson, 2017). (American Public Health Association, 2017) *The dynamics of the Brexit negotiations *Article overview – first three articles Armstrong asks to what extent UK regulatory policy will align with EU policy or will detract after Brexit, particularly in the medium and long term. in the long term. It distinguishes three modes of governance – hierarchy, markets, networks/Community and argues that the dynamics of regular regulatory divergence/alignment between the UK and EU will be a function of these modes. The article also considers the mediating influence of the global regulatory context in which both the UK and the EU are situated. This article testifies to the literature on Europeanization, in general, and the ease of external governance, in particular. Howarth and Quaglia (REF 2018) analyze political developments concerning the single financial market in the context of Brexit. Theoretically, they have engaged in political economy work that makes contrasting predictions regarding the Brexit financial negotiations: the battle between member state systems and the literature on transnational financial networks. Empirically, they find little evidence of the formation of transnational alliances in favor of maintaining the UK's good access to the single market for financial services. In contrast, major EU financial centers and international authorities have successfully lured financial businesses away from the UK. It is for these reasons that the chances of getting a special offer are slim. Dennison and Geddes (REF) address the questions of how the debate and immigration influence practice and what are the likely parameters of the poster in Beijing covering EU citizens migrating from non-member states EU. They provide a post-functionalist view of migration governance in the Black context, in