Thoughts one UK leaving EU

1 Brexit

2 SCOTUS on immigration

3 Trump abroad

4 Markets plunge

5 No gun law passes

6 Zika

7 Emmerich film opens

8 Frogs

9 Hail

10 Locusts
At least Americans will never vote for some weird nativist nightmare, in defiance of both major party establishments!

At least Americans will never vote for some weird nativist nightmare, in defiance of both major party establishments!

It’s important to just accept the result and move on, possibly to another country.

watching england leave the EU is like watching your mid-life crisis dad divorce your mom and marry ann coulter.

Have we tried unplugging 2016 waiting ten seconds and plugging it back in?

Downside of #Brexit is global economic collapse but upside is I just bought a castle

In a final tally of 52 percent to 48 percent on the “Brexit” referendum Thursday, Britons voted to exit the European Union, a decision that many believed hinged on voter opinion about immigration.

Officially, the referendum was about the pros and cons of remaining in the EU, an economic partnership between the 28 member countries that allows people, goods and information to move easily through the region. Exiting this partnership will have an impact on issues as wide-ranging as the economy, scientific research, the labor force, British vacation time and the future of the British territory of Gibraltar. 

The exit will also have major effects on public health, according to many in the field. 

Brexit will make Britain more vulnerable to disease

The public health risks of exiting the EU are plentiful. Leaving the partnership will exclude Britain from European research, disease control, and drug and food safety networks (which Britons can only keep access to by paying). Also, as Martin McKee, a professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, pointed out, leaving will cause the U.K. to backslide on environmental health. 

McKee published an article about Brexit’s threat to public health in the Journal of Public Health in March, citing the loss of European environmental regulations on clean air and water, which could take a toll on citizens’ health and safety.

Increased isolation will limit cross-boarder sharing of information about diseases, which is particularly important in a world where microbes travel as fluidly as people.

Asked about possible public health benefits of Brexit, McKee said there were “none whatsoever.”

“It would be entirely negative,” he said. “The economic damage would mean that money available for health would drop massively.” 

The claim that migrants are draining the health system is a myth

Similar to the hostility Donald Trump and his supporters in the United States have expressed toward migrants from Mexico and Central America, many pro-Brexit citizens think migrants who have come to the U.K. are burdening the country’s public health system.

“Our NHS (National Health Service) is struggling,” Barbara, a 40-year-old homemaker who lives in the suburbs, told U.S. News & World Report this month. “It doesn’t have enough funding, and you have new people coming in every day using it and not paying in.”

That’s not how the numbers shake out. According to research from University College of London, recent migrants from the European Economic Area (which includes the EU, plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein), contributed 34 percent more to the U.K.’s fiscal system than they received from 2001 to 2011. Native citizens took more from the system than they contributed over the same period. This is in part because the U.K. is attracting young, skilled European Economic Area migrants from western and southern Europe, and exporting its aging pensioners to countries like Spain and France. 

As McKee explained in his article, the financial argument for Brexit is completely illogical and “disgraceful.”  

A clear parallel to their counterparts on the other side of the Atlantic, proponents of the “leave” side — those voting for Britain to withdraw its EU membership, making it the first nation to do so — campaigned using nativist and xenophobic appeals.

The “Brexit” movement found its leader in Nigel Farage, head of the right-wing UK Independent Party. Not unlike presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, Farage is a businessman-turned-politician who ran a campaign focused on the negative impacts of immigration and nationalistic promises to “take back our country.”

Also like Trump, Farage has utilized Islamophobia, referring to Muslims as a “fifth column living within our country, who hate us and want to kill us.”

“There is an especial problem with some of the people who’ve come here and who are of the Muslim religion who don’t want to become part of our culture,” he told The Guardian last year. “So there is no previous experience, in our history, of a migrant group that comes to Britain, that fundamentally wants to change who we are and what we are. That is, I think, above everything else, what people are really concerned about

Farage’s views mirror those of Trump, who has stoked anti-immigrant and racist fears by labeling Mexican immigrants as “criminals” and “rapists,” advocating for a ban on Muslim immigration and calling for the constant surveillance of mosques, among countless other statements and proposals.

Trump unsurprisingly threw his support behind the “leave” camp earlier this week, although he said he didn’t really know much about the issue.

“I don’t think anybody should listen to me, because I haven’t really focused on it very much,” he told Fox Business Network. “But my inclination would be to get out, because you know, just go it alone.”

After the Brexit vote, Trump compared the movement in the U.K. to the presidential election in a tweet, saying U.K. voters “took their country back, just like we will take America back. No games!”

A centerpiece of Trump’s pitch to voters is a proposal to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border to stop immigration from Latin America. Farage campaigned on the supposed dangers of immigration to the U.K. and argued that the country was endangering its borders by remaining in the EU.

His party produced provocative posters featuring refugees entering the EU. They bore the tagline: “Breaking point: the EU has failed us all.”

Another key ingredient in the brew of racism and xenophobia that fueled Brexit proponents was right-wing nationalism.

It catalyzed the shooting and killing of British politician Jo Cox last week. Cox, a rising star within Britain’s Labour Party, was a strong proponent of the U.K. remaining in the EU and advocated for the rights of immigrants and refugees.

Farage angered many in his Brexit victory speech by saying the “leave” movement won “without a single bullet being fired.” 

The gunman in Cox’s shooting, Thomas Mair, had ties to right-wing extremist and nationalist groups. 
When he opened fire, Mair reportedly said, “Britain first, keep Britain independent, Britain always comes first.” And in his first court appearance following the killing, he declared, “Death to traitors, freedom for Britain.” These nationalist slogans echo Trump’s pronouncements to “make America great again,” put “America first” and “take our country back” — and prove that anti-immigrant and xenophobic platforms are alive and well in on both sides of the Atlantic.


About tretrosi2013

Gymnastics Coach, Gymnastics Educator, Part time stand up comic.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s