By choosing to employ non-EU workforces to increase staffing levels, healthcare provided to patients across the UK could be compromised. Critical reflection on the potential consequences and solutions to the public health threat, even in the event of a no-deal 500 *Did Theresa May say workers who are here will be protected? - explore Both a soft and hard Brexit impact on workers health workers and their freedom of movement, however, is not as harmful as a no-deal outcome. The absence of a structured legal framework will lead to severe sanctions for current EU citizens living and working in the UK, as well as having an effect on migration into the country. Border and visa restrictions currently in place for non-EU countries are likely to apply to all non-UK citizens entering the country. No agreement would eliminate the possibility of maintaining labor rights for workers as the legislation derives exclusively from EU law. *Regulation of medicines and clinical trials. * Access to pharmaceuticals, technology, blood and organs for transplants is at risk. Funding Identifying the threat to public health in the UK due to Brexit 250 In addition to a strong commitment to the UK's healthcare workers, the British citizens tasked with negotiating the Brexit deal must ensure that at the forefront of the discussions there is a funding commitment to improve the health of the UK population and all associated sectors. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay High levels of patient care and population health can only be maintained and improved if a strong forward-looking vision is taken on disease prevention, health promotion, and health threat identifications are adequately funded. It is hoped that the UK can reach an agreement that puts the positive health interests of the public at the forefront. The UK has a financially strong infrastructure and is currently one of the richest member states (REF) and therefore does not need as much investment as other poorer states, however, since 2001, the UK has still received over 3.5 billions of euros of capital investments in the national healthcare system. (European Investment Bank, 2017). This capital investment has enabled numerous organizations both UK and EU based 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 the funding of the NHS. An effect of Brexit and the financial aspect of the UK leaving the EU will directly affect individuals. When people travel abroad they are covered by arrangements to receive healthcare equivalent to that they would receive in the UK (REF). Brexit will mean that the benefits will likely end without a solid financial structure to support them. Negotiations must continue to gain support from within the EU to maintain the protection of British citizens traveling abroad to EU countries. Even though the European Health Insurance Card excludes all pre-existing medical conditions, it will still represent a major obstacle for those traveling to EU countries as they will most likely incur higher private insurance costs thanthey would do now (REF). This is not the only setback for UK citizens as if you already live in one of the European countries you will most likely rely heavily on this provision as well (REF2,15). How is it reduced through a suitable UK/EU agreement to mitigate its impact? 500 The best outcome the UK can hope for post-Brexit would be, as previously mentioned, a soft Brexit as this would allow arrangements already in place to likely continue. Pre-existing healthcare arrangements, existing financial arrangements relating to NHS funding, funding with regards to pharmaceuticals and the importation of all necessary healthcare products such as radioactive isotopes (REFs) are likely to continue. A flaw in the soft Brexit plan would be the possible implications for the wider economy, as this would have an indirect impact on financing provided through the European Investment Bank (REF). the UK Government must ensure we deliver the best possible financial outcome for the UK that allows us to work with the EU, as we do now, rather than insulating ourselves from all Beneficial Financial Outcomes (REFs). If a soft Brexit is not possible to achieve then the next best option would be a hard Brexit with regards to the funding of the UK healthcare system. Health benefits for British citizens abroad in EU countries would probably not provide the same health protection, however, a hard Brexit still leaves room for negotiations, although these negotiations must take into account that investments from the European Bank for investment would therefore like to fund for a robust system of overseas healthcare provision, which UK citizens are accustomed to receiving, must be sourced elsewhere. Critical reflection on the potential consequences and solutions to the public health threat, even in the event of a no-deal 500 If the UK were to leave the EU without reaching a deal, soft or hard, then it is not unreasonable to suggest that UK citizens would suffer disruptions not only to health services due to the indirect impact Brexit would have on the wider economy (Pollard, 2018). There have been numerous academic discussions analyzing the effects a no-deal Brexit will have on the UK and the negative projections for the economy and terms generally (Pollard, 2018). Dhingra and Van Reenan (Dhingra, et al., 2016) suggest that household costs could increase by up to £1700 per year, however, the figures are crucial to whether a soft or hard Brexit is warranted. In the event of a no-deal this will obviously be considerably higher. Without an agreement in place it is difficult to actually quantify the increased costs for UK citizens in the post-Brexit period. Dhingra and Van Reenan (Dhingra, et al., 2016) argue that the main financial districts of the UK, such as the South East, would be the most affected as the population of these areas would be most at risk of financial distress. Los, however, disagrees on what could be seen as a controversial disagreement: he says the most deprived areas are the economically weakest areas, which ironically the majority voted to leave. The no-deal scenario would not benefit any area and is very likely to increase health inequalities across the UK population. A correlation to this argument would be to consider the indirect impacts on the UK if a Brexit deal is not reached before the UK leaves the EU. Potential indirect implications would be effectsmedium- and long-term economic outcomes of Brexit, as outlined by Begg and Bachtler (2016), which could be considered public health threats with consequences on both national and regional scales (Begg & Bachtler, 2016). The UK has seen a relative economic recession since the 1970s compared to the US and other European countries. The UK economy is relatively weak when compared financially to previous centuries (McCann, 2016) and has disparate proportions and is visible in the growth of different geographic areas (Gardiner., et al., 2013). However, inequality in growth across the UK has not been directly caused by the UK's membership of the EU (McCann, 2016), so the solution would not be Brexit. The UK must now seek to secure a deal with its EU counterparts that allows for a rebalancing of the UK economy to help address health inequalities due to financial pressures, both on an individual basis and at a wider national economic level (Martin ., et al. ., 2015) In conclusion, the cost implications of Brexit are still unknown and leaving the EU will likely leave the UK poorer than it would otherwise have been if we had stayed within the fences EU customs on trade, uncertainty over healthcare investment and whether or not the UK will remain in the European single market. Sampson (2017) agrees with this point as he states that there is considerable uncertainty about the scale of the cost implications, with plausible estimates ranging from 1 to 10% of UK per capita income (Sampson, 2017). (American Public Health Association, 2017) *The dynamics of Brexit negotiations *Overview of documents – first three documents Armstrong asks to what extent UK regulatory policy will align with or move away from EU policy after Brexit, especially in medium and medium term. long term. He identifies three modes of governance: hierarchy, markets, networks/communities and argues that the dynamics of regular regulatory divergence/alignment between the UK and the EU will be a function of these modes. The article also considers the mediating influence of the global regulatory environment in which both the UK and the EU find themselves. This child talks about the literature on Europeanization, in general, and on the facilitation of external governance, in particular. Howarth and Quaglia (REF 2018) analyze political developments regarding the single market in financial matters in the context of Brexit. Theoretically, they have engaged in political economy bodies that make conflicting predictions about Brexit financial negotiations: the battle between member state systems and transnational financial networks literatures. Empirically they find limited evidence of the formation of transnational alliances in favor of the UK maintaining good access to the single market for financial services. Instead, major EU financial centers and international authorities ended up luring financial firms away from the UK. For these reasons the chances of a special agreement are slim. Dennison and Geddes (REF) Address questions about how debate and immigration influence practice and what the likely parameters are for the poster in Beijing covering EU citizens migrating from non-EU member states. They provide a post-functionalist account of immigration governance in the black context, discussing three main components: first, the politicization of immigration characterized by increased issue salience; secondly, the importance of public opinion preferences rather than those of a concentrated interest,