Category: British

The Northern Irish troubles were a horrid event and reverberated throughout British and Irish history. It caused a large amount of damage, both physical and mental, to the citizens that had to endure it. Bombings were fairly frequent and fear was widespread. Everyone was always dreading the next attack. Fear ran rampant, poverty was a widespread issue throughout the Irish Catholic community and their were many civil issues between the Catholic and Protestant groups. British military tried to assert control over Northern Ireland, but ultimately failed. Overall it was just a really horrific state of affairs for everyone involved. This is a explanation of why that is.

The IRA bombings during the troubles period had serious implications for the people of Northern Irish descent especially those residing in England. There was a sense of paranoia amongst the general population which was fueled by the media. Northern Irish residents in england experienced prejudice and were subject to, on occasions, to being wrongly accused of perpetrating IRA attacks and being incarcerated. For example, a well-known example of this was the Guildford Four. The Guildford Four were a group of young Irishmen who were (wrongly) accused of perpetrating the Guildford pub bombings in 1975. The Four who were accused were: Paul Michael Hill, Gerry Conlon, Patrick ‘Paddy’ Armstrong and Carole Richardson. Gerry Conlon made his living as a thief in 1970s Belfast but when the IRA got sick of him he ran away to England and met up with his friend Paul Michael Hill but on the same night the IRA bombs a nearby pub in Guildford they get forced out of the place they are staying at. He returns to Belfast but is arrested as prime suspect in the bombing and is locked away with his friends for 15 years. Due to information Conlon has provided it can be argued that his friends and him were tortured by the police in order to confess (because the officers refused to believe them innocent) until they confessed to a crime they didn’t commit. The interview by Mary-Rachel McCabe in 2014 shows this as in the interview Conlon states that, “They had me on the floor and they were stamping on me, and kicking me, one put a cigarette out on the back of my neck”. This is compelling evidence that Conlon was abused into confessing. This provides fair insight into the injustices that Northern Irish people faced just for being alive.

During the troubles period, particularly during the 1970s there was a pervasive sense of fear amongst the general population in both England and North Ireland. Day-to-day life in Northern Ireland (particularly Belfast) was subject to seemingly random violent attacks on individuals and the British military as well as bombings in cities such as Birmingham there were regular occurrences of the IRA blitzing targeted buildings and areas. As MacLeod (2005) claims “the IRA bomb campaign, which hit London from 1973 onwards, sought to create a climate of fear over a long period. There were 36 bombs in London in 1973 alone”. During the troubles period in Northern Ireland there were countless and Senseless loss of life from bombings, murders and horrendous injuries for which the IRA were responsible. According to McKittrick et al (2008) whoses book discusses the vast number of “Civilians, members of Loyalist and Republican groups, political figures, soldiers and so on who have died horrible deaths, experienced terrible injuries and whose lives have been shattered in the process’.

Poor living conditions and poverty were a widespread issue in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. Ever since the split of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland the economic stature of Northern Ireland, as it is a very small state, has been fairly dismal. But it really started to turn for the worse during the troubles. The constant attacks resulted in frequent property damage and most people wouldn’t have been able to get their homes rebuilt so they had to get put into communal housing. In these situations housing was overcrowded, too many people in the same house, not enough food because there weren’t enough jobs going around and people didn’t always have the amenities that they needed. Due to this newborns and young children had a pretty high mortality rate because they were growing up in an adverse environment where they were being assaulted by loud noises, smelly homes and general low standards of living. According to Ed Cairns (1987) “30% of the child population lived in what could be called low-income households”. Building onto this the chance of ever escaping this cycle of poverty was very low. This is due to a low supply of stable jobs or income sources. A lot people had to resort to methods that could be judged poorly by the more affluent. This included stealing food, clothes and general things that are required to live hygienically and healthily. The lives of people in Northern Ireland were, overall, dismal, gross and terrifying at times.

Growing up in the troubles period caused a modicum of desensitisation to things that would horrify most people. The children of the troubles had to grow up in one of the most traumatic times in Britain’s modern history. People were frequently shot or injured and bombings and riots were a frequent occurrence. Kids would be subjected to full body searches and bag checks whenever they entered school or a shopping centre and car bombings were so frequent that children had to stay in cars if their parents went, for example, grocery shopping just so people would know that the car wasn’t set to explode. This extended to most places in Northern Ireland as there were exclusion zones in main city areas where cars were not allowed in because the chance of a bomb threat was too high. According to Shauneen Armstrong (2018) “bombs going off in the distance and finding bullet casings on the ground were mostly an inconvenience” and “When in town, it was normal to go into a security cabin to be searched”. This has negative mental implications because it subconsciously makes the person think that these obviously horrid things to other people seem normal. This shows that life in Northern Ireland at the time was a chore and created negative ‘normalities’ in the lives of the children that experienced it.

The British military presence in Britain was both a deterrent and a catalyst for terrorist action. From early in the troubles the British government began to decide on what action they were going to take. They eventually landed on military enforcement. They sent troops in to quell the attacks. Although it seemed like a good idea it turned out to be a bit of a double-edged sword. Although it increased security somewhat the thing the government didn’t anticipate was that the soldiers had their own ideals and predetermined prejudices against the Irish. They were harsh and rough with the citizens because they saw the IRA and they Ireland and they grouped the two together in one group that they hated. Also, on another level of this the soldiers were devout Protestants and viewed the Catholics pretty indifferently and were correspondingly cold towards them. This also somewhat fueled the already growing social feud between Catholics and Protestants, this was because that the British were Church of England (Protestant) and thus supported the Protestant population of Northern Ireland and due to this they were considerably more affluent and just financially stable in general because the British were supplying them with jobs and the support was nonexistent for the Catholics and thus they were correspondingly poorer and were moved around and had to live in larger groups to support bills and mortgages and the like because small families could not survive in that climate. This created a divide between the two groups and a fair amount of animosity. The IRA took advantage of the British soldier’s arrival though, they began to assassinate soldiers and officers as a kind of statement against the colonisation and the segregation that had began to occur. This shows that the British military presence may have been a deterrent but it also created a larger social divide between the majority religious groups at the time.

The events of the Troubles created a social divide between the Catholics and Protestants. Over the course of the troubles the social divide between the two religious groups, it originally sprouted from when the country was partitioned into North Ireland and the Republic, this created a literal divide in which the British influenced the Northern part because they governed it and thus the British religion (Protestantism) was the main religion. Whilst in the Republic (which completely governed themselves, although the British were closely watched them). Catholicism was the majority religion and Protestantism was virtually non existent in that part. The British support gave the Northern Irish stability while the Republic had to support themselves and thus poverty slowly set in. The Catholics weren’t happy with this and the IRA were largely Catholic so they set about taking out prominent English colonialism supporters to make a point and these people were all Protestant. This created distrust between the Protestants and Catholics because one wasn’t sure whether the other was out to get them. This was largely due to the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) who controlled the majority of Irish politics and firmly kept Northern Ireland in Britain’s grasp. This angered both the IRA and Catholics, who were firmly nationalist as this was the core of the IRA’s ideology. According to PBS the Unionists “felt that the Catholics represented a fifth column” and that “the Catholics didn’t want to be a part of the state and wanted to undermine it”. The divide between the Catholic and Protestant groups was a social one and not a religious one. This changed how the citizens of the different groups viewed and treated each other.

The events of the Troubles have caused trauma, both physical and mental, to the survivors of it horrors. The constant attacks from the IRA were intense and happened very often. People would walk down the street and there would be riots going on the block over from them. Petrol bombs were set off all around the area and people died and/or were gravely injured fairly frequently. Many people (3500) were killed over the 30 years that the conflict went on for and without a doubt many thousands more were injured gravely or otherwise. The damage though, was not only physical. It also affected people on a mental scale peoples families were affected. People sustained terrible injuries the likes of loss of limbs and they were never the same, not only physically but mentally as well. An example of this is a Sinn Fein (Northern Irish Unionist Party) MP named Michelle Gildernew, according to an article on the 12th of April 2019 it reports that she said at a meeting in Dublin it is reported by a UK newsletter that she said Anybody who has lost a loved one knows what it feels like to be a victim. “There is an awful lot of pain and hurt out there, I recognise that, we’ve all been through the conflict, I was diagnosed with PTSD in 2013 as a result of it, there is a lot of damaged people out there”. This infers that not only has it caused PTSD in survivors but there is also increased suicide rates and similar occurrences in survivors. This shows that the events of the Troubles were not only physically scarring for survivors and their family members but is also mentally distressing to the point of drastic action.

Thus the events of the troubles and the IRA attacks were a strain on British and Irish society and caused widespread panic and damage across England and Ireland. Poverty was a huge issue and the Catholics and Protestants were constantly at each other’s throats all the time and British and Irish people intensely despised one another (and still do to some degree). It has had lasting effects on families, people, places and how certain groups perceive each other. Security in England increased tenfold as the people and government were always having to anticipate the next attack so they tried to prevent this as much as possible. The conflict was almost constant and its effects can still be felt today in the areas it took place in.

In Mexico the primary language is Spanish, the population is of approximately 129.2 million people, and traditional foods includes tacos, enchiladas, and pozole. On the other side of the Atlantic Ocean the primary language of the United Kingdom is English, the population is of 66.02 million people, and traditional foods include fish and chips, bangers and smash, and shepherds pie. Mexico and the United Kingdom are two countries whose culture, history, political and education systems, really show how different they both are. The Atlantic Ocean separates both of these countries with Mexico relying in North America and the United Kingdom in Europe. Each of these countries has an independent strategy of how they organize their systems of politics and education. In this essay, the education and political systems of both of these countries will be outlined. The differences and similarities if any, of each of these two systems within the two countries will also be explained.

Mexico like the United States has had various editions of their constitution. Mexico first achieved its independence from Spain in the year 1812 and ever since then various editions of constitutions have existed. The current Mexican constitution has existed since 1917. The people of Mexico originally took pride in constitutionalism and what it represented by naming streets, cities, and city squares after certain articles of the constitution. Particularly one of the most important articles of the Mexican constitution includes Article 83, which outlines the term of a Mexican president. Each president is allowed to be elected for one term which totals in 6 years in office. In 1934 the policy that outlined being able to serve only one six year term expanded to deputies as well. This change allowed for deputies to have a limit of the authority and influence they could build up within their term. On the other hand, the limit allowed for deputies to lack in accountability due to the fact that they knew they would not be re-elected in the next election.

Finally, in order to make changes to the constitution both houses of the legislature must approve the change. In addition, a total of 17 out of 32 states must also agree and approve the change. Throughout time the constitution of Mexico has been amended a total of 500 times within the course of 100 years.

The role of the Mexican President is not only a powerful position but it has a strong ability to influence. The elected president of Mexico is the head of the government and also the head of state. Unlike the United States, the president is responsible for executing and enforcing laws. The ability to veto bills, standing as the commander-in-chief of the Mexican military forces, and appointing the cabinet outlines the strong powers the presidency carries. The president of Mexico also stands alone as there is no official vice president unlike the U.S. The legislature of Mexico is bicameral system as it has two houses “La Camara de Diputados” and “La Camara de Senadores”. La Camara de Diputados is translated to “The Chamber of Deputie”s and is one of the two houses in the Mexican legislature. A total of 500 members make up the Chamber of Deputies, 300 of those members are elected by plurality vote per each of the single- member districts. The other 200 members are elected per proportional representation with closed party list. Each of these 500 members serve for a total of 3 years per term and are limited to no more than 2 terms. La Camara de Senadores or The Senate of the Republic is the second house that makes up the Mexican legislature. The Senate of the Republic consist of 128 members known at senators. For each of the 32 states of Mexico, 2 senators are elected by plurality vote. The other 32 senators are the first-runner up’s of each of the 32 states and the last 32 senators are elected from a national close party list.

Mexico like the United States has political parties who are groups of people who share ideas of political goals and opinions. Although there are three existing political parties, the longevity of one political party has created a continues, strong, and monopoly like feel toMexican politics. The first political party is The Institutional Revolutionary Party also known as PRI. The PRI was first created in the year 1929 by former president Plutacaro Elias Calles. Calles feared for the stability of Mexican politics after elected successor Alvaro Obregon was killed before he took office. The PRI carried a strong leadership role in Mexican politics for 71 long years during the years 1929 to 2000. The second political party is The National Action Party also known as PAN. This political party was created in 1939 by politicians of government who wished for a substitute to the oldest political party known as PRI. This political party has won with president Felippe Calderon and Vicente Fox from the years 2000 to 2006. The third political party is The Party of the Democratic Revolution also known as PRD. The PRD is the youngest of the three biggest political parties as it was created in 1988. Members of this political party demanded democratic elections that were fair and more social programs for its citizens. During the 2006 and 2012 presidential elections Lopez Obrador a controversial polititian was close to a victory in the year 2006 but lost to both the PAN and PRI parties in both elections.

government has experienced a slow movement to a more democratic form of government which allows the people of this country to feel strong in that their elected officials are representing them in the best ways possible. Overall the federal government has failed to regulate monopolies, provide successful social programs for those who live in poverty, and assure accountability for those who are found in act of corruption. The high levels of corruption can be seen in one the countries most controversial and saddening cases the unresolved disappearance of 43 students in Ayotzinapa. The case remains unresolved and leads and suspicions that involvement of The Mexican municipal, state, and federal police in the case due to the profit of drugs broke the country.

The history of the United Kingdom is a crucial contribution to the political system that exist today. In 1606, William the Conqueror defeated King Harold and successfully conquered what is known today as England. This achievement began a massive move for expansion of Normans. They continued this expansion by conquering Ireland, Wales, and eventually Scotland. Although Ireland was conquered there was a great division withing the people. Those who lived in southern Ireland mostly consisting of catholics did not accept to be ruled by the English. In 1916, they fought and rebelled against England and eventually gained its independence. The northern part of Ireland however consisting of mostly protestants believe they would benefit from the English power and agreed to join the union of Great Britain. Thus, the British have never experienced a revolution in order to achieve independence nor separation of power due to lack of invasion or occupation by other countries or powers. This is a huge contribution as to why Britain does not have a formal written constitution.

Unlike other large countries constitutionally the head of state is a monarch who is a member of the royal family. Currently Queen Elizabeth II rules North Ireland and Great Britain. Although the role of Kings and Queens continue to exist these roles can be viewed as a culture infused practice that continue as a way to hold on to the history and identity of the historically rich culture of England. The Queen or King has few formal powers in government and stays above politics for the most part. There also isn’t a president in this system of government, however there is a Prime Minister. The Prime Minister can be viewed as the equivalency of other countries president’s with strong roles in government. The Prime Minister appoints all other

ministers and they report to him. The United Kingdom has what is known as a Parliament which can be viewed as a legislature. Like other large countries the U.K. Parliament consist of two separate houses known as the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The House of Commons has approximately 650 members however this number changes from time to time as the number of members reflects the current population. Each member of the House of Commons is held to represent a geographical constituency. Members of this house have a chaired speaker however unlike in the United States, the speaker of this house does not stand for a particular political party and should remain neutral. Members of this house don’t actually vote instead members cast their vote with “aye” or “nay” to state their approval or disapproval. They do this by walking through one of two lobbies which cast their vote, the votes are then counted by tellers who then report to the speaker of the house. The second house is The House of Lords which is unique and unlike any other house of other governments around the world. The House of Lords consist of around 800 members who are in charge of revising the legislation and look over government activities, thus this house has less authority. Historically most of the members that make up the House of Lords are members whose family have passed down the position and who were originally nominated by a king or queen.

In the political system of the United Kingdom there are four political parties that exist. The first political party is The Conservative Party which is the most conservative group that tends to fight for a more patriotic government. The second party is The Labour Party which is the centre-left party and which was last in office from 1997 to 2010. The third party is The Scottish National Party which heavily supports an independence for Scotland. The fourth political party is The Liberal Democratic Party that consist of member who believe in a more liberal government.

In the recent years however, the U.K. has seen an increase of a fifth political party known as the Independence Party. It was formed in 1993 and has had its up’s and down’s in popularity with winning 12.6% of vote in a May 2015 election. The independent goals for the country of each of these political parties differ in areas of taxation, finding balance between collective rights and right for individuals. There are however many areas in which these political parties agree with and many of their ideas overlap, this has caused for large political parties to dissolve and slowly grow into separate political parties. Finally, since the United Kingdom covers an entity that consist of England, Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland it would make sense that they have a unique system of government. In order to represent the citizens of all three of these countries three institutions have been developed. The Scottish Parliament was created in May 1999. The Welsh Assembly was also create around the same year of the Scottish Parliament. Lastly, The Northern Ireland Assembly is the newest of these institutions which was created in 2007.

Like many other countries around the world education is an important and crucial factor that not only helps the future generations develop and change the future of their country, but it should be attainable for all including the rich and poor. In the previous years the education system in Mexico has experienced a large growth of enrolled students. From 1950 to 2000 the total number of students who have enrolled in basic and higher education has increased from 3.25 to 28.22 million. The large amount of growth of students has enacted a large pressure on the Mexican education system. A large increase in the amount of students enrolled to both private and public institutions has created a financial strain on the Mexican government. This financial strain has in hand caused a diminishing quality of education in public school. Although there has been an increase in enrolled students the quality of Mexican education has been and continues to

be extremely low compared to other countries. Mexico ranked last in education among the 35 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries (OECD) amongst Greece, Germany, and Chile to name a few. According to a Gallup poll only 56% of Mexicans believe that everyone who lives in Mexico has access to proper education. There are various reasons as to why Mexicans face the challenge of not being able to receive a quality education. First, poverty is not only a country wide dilemma but it’s a one of the biggest contributions to Mexican children having access to a basic and fair chance to education. Approximately 18% of Mexicans live in extreme poverty which causes school dropouts, absences, and grade repetition. Poverty effects children actually being able to attend school because although private education is free for grades K-12 there are other mandatory factors that can determine a child from attending. Most if not all public institutions require school uniforms, students to provide their own lunch, and school supplies such as backpacks, books, and journals are not provided. This creates a restraint because uniforms, lunches, and school supplies are unattainable for poor families. The issue of indigeneity is the second factor that contributes to receiving a quality education. Indigenous communities are disproportionately more poor than non-indigenous communities which in hand effects their access to a simple education. The education systems in Mexico are not designed around indigenous cultures thus there are few teachers who speak indigenous languages which makes it difficult for indigenous children to experience and learn at the pace of their fellow students. There is also a high level of discrimination towards indigenous people which leads to a low performance from indigenous children in grade school. Gender inequality within the Mexican culture contributes to the increase of Mexican girls being more likely to drop our than boys by the age of 12. Finally, the federal government has done a poor job in creating a suitable and balanced budget towards education. In the last 3 years, the Mexican government has reduced the budged for education by 11%, the textbook budged reduced by one-third, and training programs for educators reduced by nearly 40%. The level of poverty within the country and the excessive budged cuts toward education are all vital contributions to barriers that Mexicans face in attempting to receive a public and basic education.

The United Kingdom ranks #6 in Pearson’s latest Learning Curve study, while the United States ranks #17. In certain areas of the U.K. there is no public transportation and mostly students rely on there parents to arrive and leave school daily. In 2018 the Times Higher Education World Rankings stated that the United Kingdom’s holds the honor of having 3 of the worlds top 10 universities in the world. Overall the systematic organization of education funds has lead the United Kingdom to spends approximately $85,000 per student. The amount that the U.K. spends on education per student shows that only seven other countries spend more per student than the U.K. across the OECD countries. High school students however rank fairly average in areas such as reading and mathematics however they do rank slightly above average in areas of science. Although the U.K. spends a fairly larger amount per student than the United States, the education system also has its fair share of dilemmas. Teachers are seen responding to the issues of the education by making parents aware through letters sent home with the students that share the details of the dilemma. The letters indicate that there isn’t enough money in the system to allow each and every student to perform effectively.

This creates problems of expenses for parents in early stages of the kids education which is an economic issue because most parents plan to invest in their child’s university education not in primary education. Its crucial that parents pick up the slack and begin to invest in the their child’s education earlier in order for them to properly perform in academics. Other outstanding issues of the education system in the U.K. include the areas of study in which teachers are choosing to focus less on. With a dysfunctional dispersement of educational funds teachers prioritize what subjects their curriculum will focus on. Subjects such as sex education have received less attention in public school to some schools not offering any sex education at all. The lack of sex education is believed to have created an increase in amount of sexual offenses committed by individuals below the age of 18 by 71% between the years 2013 and 2017. In the United States the focus of determining a students understanding of the material taught per course based on final exam grades has moved to performance throughout the course. In the United Kingdom however the evaluation of students performance lies heavily on final exams. The high amount of workload has created a large issue of mental stress that children experience due to the high levels of stress.

Analyse British attitudes towards immigrants to Britain over the last 100 years and analyse the reasons for these attitudes and for changes over time.

Immigration has long been a topic under discussion because it is a significant demographic and social phenomenon. It involves a wide range of complex issues closely related to people’s lives, which makes people’s attitudes towards immigrants vary. Figure 1 displays a detailed description of British people’s attitude changes in the last century. The detailed analysis and reasons are as follows.

In 1920-1937, after World War I, British attitudes towards immigrants, mainly Russian refugees (Clohesy, 2020), were negative. On the government side, as Wilson suggests, the Aliens Order of 1920 signaled a greater control of immigrants (Wilson, 1959 in Panayi, 1992), setting the tone for British attitudes towards immigrants in the next decades. As for public opinion, Panayi mentions that people had a feeling of “apathy” toward these refugees (1993). There were three reasons for the negative attitudes. After the war, firstly, the closure of munitions factories and retooling caused unemployment in the society (Cesarani,1992). British people feared that immigrants would intensify the problem. Secondly, the “economic dislocation” (Cesarani,1992) after the war was a big concern. An increase of immigrants would overload the country’s resources. Thirdly, people considered these immigrants as right-wing diehard (Wilson, 1959 in Panayi, 1992). They feared that immigrants could be a threat to society.

From 1938 to 1945, although some immigration restrictions still existed (Cesarani, 1992), generally, British attitudes towards immigrants were sympathetic. Panayi mentions that in 1938-1939, a large influx of refugees from Nazism sought entrance into British society, and in World War II, refugees from European conflict entered Britain (1993). In both periods of time, Britain actively helped refugees to integrate into society. As Panayi states, many reception committees, “usually backed with government money”, were formed to aid the refugees, and just “by 1939 over 200 provincial committees of the above, and other, organizations existed” (1993). The reasons for the attitudes could be that on the one hand, humanitarianism in British society resulted in a sympathetic view toward immigrants (Kay and Miles, 1988 in Panayi, 1992). On the other hand, the aid for the refugees might help Britain to set up a good image internationally.

In 1946-1961, after World War II, government attitudes toward immigrants were positive while public attitudes were negative. In 1948, according to Clohesy, the “British Nationality Act technically gave every Commonwealth the right to move to Britain” (2020). And this led to a large influx of immigrants of Commonwealth citizens, mainly from South Asia and the Caribbean (Ford, 2011). Two reasons could be accounted for the government’s positive attitudes towards immigrants. Economically, after World War II, as Clohesy suggests, Britain needed a labor force to help rebuild the country (2020). Politically, the immigrant policy at that time was, as McLaren and Johnson suggest, “determined by the concern for maintaining subjecthood linkages with the Old Commonwealth of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand”(2007). However, public opinions were negative, since most of the Commonwealth immigrants were black people. Just as Ford points out, non-white immigrants were more likely to receive negative opinions, and “hostility to migrants from South Asia and the Caribbean was vociferous from the outset” (2011).

[bookmark: _Hlk39521577]From 1962 to 1988, British people’s attitudes towards immigrants became worse. That was mainly on account of a series of social events. The rapid breakout of imported smallpox was a beginning. Bivins notes that it marked the changes of British people’s attitudes toward immigrants (2007). The British people were furious at the immigrants who brought the smallpox virus to Britain. Bivins also mentions that with the raising payment to the welfare system that was mainly supported by government tax income, the British people considered that they paid a great price for the welfare of the immigrants (2007). Things went worse later. Small and Solomos point out that the widespread riots caused British people to worry (2006). Immigrants were discriminated against in this time period.

In recent decades(from 1988 to 2020), British people’s attitudes towards immigrants tend to be more positive in general, which is caused by the British government’s ideology. Velázquez points out that the British government intends to embrace multiculturalism and diversity by using immigration as a helpful strategy (2017). Karatani also expresses a similar idea that the British government acknowledges immigration officially due to its influence on cultural enrichment, which has a very powerful and positive impact on British people’s opinion on immigrants (2019).

However, what cannot be ignored is that the sentiment against immigration still exists. Specifically, the sentiment and negative perceptions toward immigrants result from some British people’s sense of threat of their own group(Blinder, 2011). In other words, those people who hold negative opinions towards immigrants experience more feelings of threat to their own cultural identity and culture than others. Moreover, as binder states, those people tend to think that immigrants cause a bad impact on literally every aspect of life, including the economy, society, and politics (2011). The media is to blame for that because they tend to portray immigrants as criminals, terrorists, and people who steal their jobs (Sinno and Hellwig, 2016). Those negative portrayals influence those people who hold negative opinions. That explains with a great many of people being positive, why there are still people holding negative opinions towards immigrants.

All in all, in the last century, British people’s attitudes towards immigrants change through time. Society, politics, economy, and culture are all important factors that have a huge impact on people’s opinions to immigrants. These factors work together and help people’s ideas toward immigrants to evolve and develop. In the future, not only British people but people from all over the world should combine those factors together when it comes to viewing immigrants.

Reference list:

1. Bivins, R. (2007) ‘“The people have no more love left for the Commonwealth”: Media, migration, and identity in the 1961–62 British smallpox outbreak’, Immigrants & Minorities, 25 (3), pp.263-289. DOI: 10.1080/02619280802407376.
2. Blinder, S. (2011) ‘UK Public Opinion toward Migration: Determinants of Attitudes’, The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, [online] Available at: [Accessed 4 May 2020].
3. [bookmark: _Hlk39408817]Cesarani, D. (1992) ‘An alien concept? The continuity of anti‐alienism in British society before 1940’, Immigrants & Minorities: Historical Studies in Ethnicity, Migration, and Diaspora, 11(3), pp. 24-52, DOI: 10.1080/02619288.1992.9974788.
4. Colhesy, A. (2020) PPT
5. Ford, R. (2011) ‘Acceptable and unacceptable immigrants: How opposition to immigration in Britain is affected by migrants’ region of origin’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37(7), pp. 1017-1037. DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2011.572423.
6. Hellwig, T. and Sinno, A. (2016) ‘Different groups, different threats: public attitudes towards immigrants’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43(3), pp. 339-358, DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2016.1202749.
7. Karatani, R. (2019) ‘Britishness Reconsidered: Interplay Between Immigration and Nationality Legislation and Policymaking in Twenty-first Century Britain’, The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 47(5), pp. 1021-1042. DOI: 10.1080/03086534.2019.1677347.
8. McLaren, L. and Johnson, M. (2007) ‘Resources, Group Conflict and Symbols: Explaining Anti-Immigration Hostility in Britain’, Political Studies, 55(4), pp. 709–732. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00680.x
9. Panayi, P. (1993) ‘Refugees in twentieth-century Britain: A brief history, The International Refugee Crisis, pp. 95-112. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-12054-3_7
10. Small, S. and Solomos, J. (2006) ‘Race, Immigration and Politics in Britain Changing Policy Agendas and Conceptual Paradigms 1940s–2000s’, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 47(3-4), pp. 235-257. DOI: 10.1177/0020715206065781.
11. Ortega Velázquez, E. (2017) ‘Minority Rights for Immigrants: From Multiculturalism to Civic Participation’, Mexican law review, 10(1), pp. 103-126. doi: 10.22201/iij.24485306e.2017.19.11385.

Describe and explain the social construction of Britishness in a culture known to you

The aim of this essay is to describe and explain the social construction of Britishness in a culture known to me. Therefore, as I am from Spain and I live in a tourist area, I will explain first what “Social constructions mean” and then I will focus on the famous stereotype that Spanish people tend to think about British tourists. Concretely, I will focus on how Spanish people think that British people get out of control when they are on holiday and that they do not do an effort to integrate in Spain.

Since we are born, we are categorized unconsciously in a series of roles that defines us as an individual and as a group of identities that are socially constructed. These roles are marked by the various ways that different cultures develop and use biological categories such as (gender, age, sex, ethnicity, and so forth) and physical categories such as occupation and region. These are not the only sources of identity, but they are a significant selection of the main sources of identity in modern societies such as in Britain and Spain. Identity gives us the idea of “who we are”, however, these socially constructed view permits us to find out how we see ourselves and how others see us.

These differences between people, we can call them “labels” as E.Cone and G.Levine mention in their book Identity, Formation, Agency, and Culture. These labels can be defined as general expectations that others relate to you in terms of how you should behave considering the values and norms. These “labels” or expectations will be different between two people from different countries as their norms, traditions, occupation, region and therefore, identities are different.

Following this, “the social construction of Britishness” means how the British society has its own values, norms, and forms of behavior. Subsequently, we can see certain forms of integrations (forms of belonging) when British people come to Spain in order to live there or only to stay there temporally for some months or even to stay only for holiday. In other words, we can see certain social construction of Britishness in Spain.

Benidorm, a Spain town also known as Costa Blanca, is one of the first choices for British People and other European tourists for going on holiday. Benidorm is a perfect village for tourists as it offers a large range of choices to do, such as fantastic nightlife, home-from-home bars, restaurants, the most popular beaches of Costa Blanca, and certainly the Spanish Sunshine. For that reason, Benidorm is one of the most famous tourist towns in Spain. Thai it is why it has tourists of all ages. However, the problem comes when these British tourists doesn’t integrate well or doesn’t do the effort to integrate in Spain.

Karis Wales Crowley (the spokesperson of British people in Benidorm) explains in the Spanish newspaper the Dial that she really regrets the attitude of his compatriots as they are creating “British little villages”. In fact, she tells a true history of an old British tourist that after her arrival in a Hotel in Benidorm she denounced the agency that sold her holidays as she claimed that in Benidorm there are too many Spaniards and that she can’t understand them. The old British tourist expected that it would be more British people in the hotel. Moreover, Crowley, reports in the newspaper the Dial that in the 27 years that she has been living in Benidorm, she has seen how some bars and pubs have become a replica of English pubs. But what it is more surprising is that according to the Newspaper the Dial, 36% of Spanish people have feel as a stranger in their own country as they have found out that in some bars and restaurants, the waiters are only able to speak English.

In addition, Crowley reported in the Spanish newspaper “El confidential” that there are too many British people they don’t go to the Municipal Spanish Community officers in order to register themselves because there, people don’t speak Spanish and they find everything very difficult. In addition, Crowley as a native British affirms that the stereotype that the British people come to Spain to retire and to enjoy free health is true. She affirms also that the Spanish Government should make easier the process of registering in Spain, and that the government should explain or to give more voice about the importance of registering, as most British tourist that came to Spain to live does not know that they have to register into the register of inhabitants offices.

Even though there are British people that come to Spain in order to retire, according to the newspaper El confidential, most of the tourists that come to Spain, are young people their main aim is to have fun. As stated by Confidential 48% of the British tourists that came to Spain in order to have fun and go to parties, are between 24-31 years old. What is more surprising is the specific” case of Tomek”. A homeless man that used to live in Benidorm but after being humiliated by a group of young British tourists decided to live in another country. The group of young tourists were celebrating the bachelor party, and they thought that it was fun to pay a hundred euros to Tomek, in exchange of getting the name and address of the boyfriend tattooed on his forehead.

Another famous city that British people tend to go on holiday is Barcelona, concretely, the district called “La Barceloneta”. As maintained by an analysis of the area (Analysis of socio-cultural impacts from the perspective of the tourism resident that generates in the neighborhood of Barceloneta, Spain), 94% of the neighborhood stated that British tourism were beneficial for Barcelona. However, Joan Batllori an 80-year-old resident of Barcelona claimed that he was fed up that unknown groups of tourists ring the ball at dawn. In the analysis were also discussions about how Spain is one of the easiest and most accessible European countries for an immigrant to come to without paying any tax. Also, an easy country to enter through customs and easy to live hidden, without anyone asking for you. That explains why most British and other Europeans live as “tourists” instead of registering themselves into the office as an immigrant.

One extreme case of harmful tourism that it seems that has become a mode nowadays is “balconing”. The term “balconing” means to jump into a swimming pool from the balcony. This famous way of making tourism is one of the most extreme principal deaths of British tourism in Spain. As reported by the BBC newspaper, during the summer of 2018, eleven British holidaymakers have been reported as falling from a balcony, with eight of them in their teens or 20s. Five of those eleven died from injuries, according to the Association of British Travel Agents.

Furthermore, according to Martínez and Rodríguez in their article called Nuevos retos para el turimo en un mundo en crisis, talks about the term” turismofobia”. This term means to have a phobia to tourism, concretely referring to those Spanish people who are fed up of tourists and that it’s difficult for them to make a “normal” life. In the article, there are also discussions about how the government of Spain is so permissive and that should take more control over the people who enter and leave Spain. Moreover, the article relates how people who work for at tourist places such as bars, restaurants, discos, and pubs, claim a lack of security and vigilance by the police.

Conclusion

After having analyzed in the newspapers the attitude of British people and their integration when they come to Spain, I can conclude that the stereotype that British people get out of control and that they do not do an effort to integrate in Spain is true. Furthermore, I can conclude that the British tourist that came to Spain in order to have fun are young people in their 20s. At the contrary, those tourists that do not make the effort to integrate are concrete people who came to Spain in order to retire. However, part of the blame of the harmful tourist is the lack of governmental Spanish administration. You cannot expect to have tourism of quality if the police do not act when all these types of wild tourism occur. Therefore, I believe that before judging an action or making a stereotype we should seek first and pay attention if there are other external causes that are helping or contributing to the growth of these stereotypes.

References

1. E. Cote, James, Charles G.Levine, (2002). Identity, Formation, Agency, and culture. New York: Psychology Press
2. Karin Maling Crowley. (20/08/2019). ‘Los ingleses no se adaptan en España’ Ideal
3. Karen Maling Cowles .(11/08/2018). La vos de los británicos en Benidorm: ‘No podemos ser una carga para España’ El confidential,
4. Amalilla Canto, Carlos. (2016). Analisis de los impactos socioculturales desde la perspectiva del residente del turismo que genera en el barrio de la Barceloneta, España. Revista de Ocio y turismo, (1), 4, . (13/06/2018). Balcony deaths: British tourist warned after 11 falls in three months. BBC News,
5. Martínez y Rodríguez, . (2011). Nuevos retos para el turismo en un mundo en crisis. Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, (),
6. , . (). ‘A’ level of sociology. Teaching notes for students. Culture and identity.

Discuss the impact of globalisation on British television. Does it matter whether or not there are programmes about Britain, made by British programme-makers, on British screens?

Nowadays, all around the globe, we can see globalization on television, which means every single country have their own programmes and programmes from other nationalities or formats that was not made by them. Over the years, the United States can prove that they are the country that made more shows, films, and programmes. Otherwise, the country that sells more tv formats is the Netherlands, with the Endemol Shine Group (they have more than 4,300 registered formats. In the United Kingdom, the most important company is BBC, this channel was born in 1936, The BBC was the first broadcaster in the world to provide a regular ‘high definition television service. Nowadays, BBC, with other production companies, made programmes and dramas for British and non-British people around the world, they sell the format or even the entire series. A very good example is the new series of BBC, “Dynasties”, BBC sells this entire series around the world, for example, SIC, a Portugal TV channel.

ITV and Channel 4 were and are very important in British television. ITV was born in 1955 to provide competition to the BBC. Ages later Channel 4 was born, with the mission that makes difference, with the promise that will be a channel for young people. The thing is, BBC, Channel 4 and ITV just need to have a British show for British people or is important to have some different content?

First of all, we need to consider that any programme lives for have the biggest number in audience/ views, and this creates a big challenge for all the creators around the world this fantastic industry to create more and better for have more viewers. This big industry that moves a lot of money, made this one of the industries that we spend more money on.

According to with “Contemporary British Television”, the expansion in the number of channels in the world is huge, and British people with internet access can see other products from the other side of the world. Now we can access programmes by a range of interactive devices, and access to platforms as Netflix and Amazon Prime helps in media globalization. But is Netflix and Amazon Prime television? Or a type of television? The truth is some people see drama made for television on Netflix, a good example is “Bodyguard” a series made by BBC with Netflix the first run was on BBC but after a couple of weeks, the series was available for Netflix users around the world. Another example of that co-production is the documentary “The World’s Most Extraordinary Homes” made by Netflix with BBC. These is good examples of programmes/ dramas that were made for a British production, according to of course with Netflix, but British, made for British, but available for citizens in the globe.

But this is just one example of something that British people do for the world, “Sherlock”, “The Office”, “Lovesick”, “Black Mirror”, “The Fall”, “The End of the F***ing World”, “Dead Set”, “Luther”, “The Inbetweeners”, “Broadchurch”, “Peaky Blinders”, “The IT Crowd” and “Happy Valley”, they are the most recent products made by British.

So really television matters? ‘Television is important. But not as important as the people who work in it think it is” Stephen Carter, Ofcom Chief Executive. For the people that work on television, of course, matter, it is their work. But for the people that see? For the customer? Really Matter? In fact, nowadays, television is a very important media, as information, education, and entertainment, it’s something that makes the day for old people. So, how TV can keep us informed, with news, news channels, for example, BBC News, Sky News, Sky Sports News (this is a genre of news, but keep us informed as well, but on sports section) and news programmes as Channel 4 News on Channel 4, BBC News at six on BBC. But those programmes are, educational as well, otherwise, on British television, we have educational programmes with just that proposed, for children. As entertainment on British television, we can see, some drama or programmes as “This Morning” on ITV, “Sunday Brunch” on Channel 4 and “Pointless” on BBC. Also, another big question is, it is Netflix, Amazon Prime, and other platforms television? Of course, it is different television, but in the content, we have drama and documentaries in the same format, with episodes and series with more a less the same time, 45 minutes, 1 hour. So the only thing different it is the possibility to see when we want without advertisements. Yes, television is more than documentaries and dramas. Is something that doesn’t make the oldest people feel lonely is someone, speak somewhere and speak with you about his life, or other life, or a quiz game, reality shows, chat shows, most of the time is where we discover the problems of the world (entertainment or news).

Another question that we can ask, is Which type of programmes the United Kingdom imports to their market? As said before, Endemol is the biggest Europe producer, and most of the programmes are made by this producer some of them are “Big Brother”, “Ambulance”, “Brain”… But why British producers don’t create this type of shows, why channel as ITV, BBC and Channel 4, need to buy the format to Endemol Shine Group. The answer is simple, it’s cheaper! For example, the script is made by the original producer, they just need to adapt to the English version and adapt for players, the set is already drawn, they just need to make some adjusts to the studio, some of this shows they can record 3 shows in one day so they save a lot of money with this! Another thing that matter on this is, that some of these shows have the most views on British Tv, so it’s more money on advertisements.

But why do programmes from the other side of the world matter? The answer is simple, is really matters. Essential is the public experience, the public can live the experience on the other side of the world thru television. If British people saw an Indian programme about Indian food, the public will feel on Indians. Or imagine a drama made by Portuguese people, why the British can’t see. Of course, they can with subtitles, and British people can see and feel other communities, and don’t forget that this type of content is available in all world so British people can see the comment and appreciate content from all over the world and can improve their knowledge and interesting in different things.

Based on historical facts, in 2011, The Economist published this “Many of the world’s most popular television shows were invented in Britain. But competition is growing”. From 2011 to nowadays the competition is growing very fast, Bollywood is growing in the industry of drama and others shows, Yes, it’s real, the British market is losing for markets as the Netherlands. The programme “Who wants to be a Millionaire” in the 1990s has around 15m views in 2011 the numbers down for 5m. This is normal in this industry because as said before, in the market of British television we have a lot of competition that made the viewers change between programmes and channels. Otherwise, Britain still works very hard in unscripted programmes, like quizzes, songs competitions, and other reality shows.

In “A Future For Public Service Television: Content And Platforms In A Digital World” we can read, “Public service content outside the television world” on page 95 that sentence talks about the content for smartphones and tablets, today we can see our favourite shows in all platforms, British shows, or programmes from the other side of the world, and the public can see what they want when they want.

And this is the future on television, of course, the news still is on life in television, but programmes as quizzes, documentaries or dramas, we will see in little platforms like smartphones and laptops. The disadvantage to see on this type of platform is a drama like “Bodyguard” is the quality, because it is a small screen with fewer colours and the lowest bit rates, o the public can not feel the same experience when they decide to see on a smartphone than the television screen.

To conclude if the British programmes need to be made by British people for the British market, the globalization of the television market tells us the opposite, every single day we can see more co-productions and productions made by other productions in other countries, and formats write and develop by companies as Endemol Shine Group. In “A Future For Public Service Television: Content And Platforms In A Digital World” we can confirm this experience, that television is changing, the future of television is on smartphones, tablets and laptops, and the market on the United Kingdom changed with that because the British people can access easier. So, the challenge for British productions is to adapt and change their programmes for online platforms, but it is also good for a British citizen to see other realities.

References:

1. The Guardian (2015) UK TV industry and globalisation webchat – five things we learned [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/media-network/2015/nov/03/globalisation-uk-tv-industry-webchat-things-we-learned
2. Goldsmiths University of London (2016) A Future For Public Service Television: Content And Platforms In A Digital World [online] Available at: http://www.vlv.org.uk/broadcasting-assets/fotvfullreportonpsbjuly2016.pdf
3. Publisher – Faye Woods (2016) British Youth Television: Transnational Teens, Industry, Genre Williams (2003) Television: technology and cultural form John Ellis (2007) TV FAQ
4. https://www.theguardian.com/media-network/2015/nov/03/globalisation-uk-tv-industry-webchat-things-we-learned
5. https://www.theguardian.com/media-network/2015/nov/03/globalisation-uk-tv-industry-webchat-things-we-learned

What is culture? Culture can be defined as the language spoken, customs, and routines in a group or society. It is also simply considered as a whole part of what people prefer and do not or what they like and dislike either negative or positive things. What people share in their social practice which involves ideologies, values, beliefs, traditions as well as perspectives is known as culture (Schein, 1985). Additionally, culture is also can be an alternative solution to dealing with both internal and external issues within a social group or community. This paper will discuss aspects of British culture such as ethnicity in British, social etiquette, and family life as well.

British have long been known with a dense and diverse population. British culture includes different races and ethnicities. The predominant race is white or known as Anglo-Saxon. Based on the data from ‘Office National Statistic’, in mid-2014, about 64,6 million or 87,2% is white British. In 2011, there were 80 percent population of the British lived in England and Wales. Additionally, there were 6,8 percent population of made up by Asian groups (Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi, and others); 3,4 percent were black groups; 0,7 percent population of Chinese groups; 0,4 percent population of Arab groups; and there were 0,6 percent population of other groups. While, in terms of religion, it was presented in many forms and beliefs. Most of Britain’s society are Christianity. And some of them are Muslim, Hindu other, and unidentified or none. Approximately, Christianity are 71.6 %, Muslims are 2.7%, Hindus are 1%, other are 1.6, and 23.1 % are identified as unspecified or none.

Not only does British diverse with its ethnicity, but it also has a set of social etiquette which is considered as a big deal when it comes to British culture. They deem polite manners are imperative as the British, the English in particular, is famous for its historical story regarding the way people speak, gesture, timeliness as well as politeness. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, etiquette is the usual sign or code of good manners in a group or among people of a certain profession or society. British people are very concerned to some extent as it rules how they act or communicate with one another in daily life. British people highly appreciate the ones who arrive as the appointment. Punctuality is part of their culture which means that coming late in British culture is impoliteness. Someone will be considered rude when they arrive late to a business project meeting or another formal agenda such as a wedding party. Yet arriving earlier is also bad idea as it shows impolite behavior to the host and it is highly suggested to attend 10-15 minutes before the occasion. Moreover, it is a common thing to see people in line at a place such as shops or other places. Queuing in British culture is a must to those who are new there because people patiently waiting in order for their turn and they consider people who break the queue. Apart from queuing, another common thing in the UK is apologizing. British people are more likely to over-apologize. Take for example when you tell your friends about an unlucky that you has experienced, they will apologize by saying “ I am so sorry to hear that”. Also, one thing that British people are interested to is talking about the weather. This could be the best way to talk with British people and it is such an ice breaker in conversation. Furthermore, the British have a strict sense when asking about money or salary as it is considered rude to question someone’s salary or anything in relation to money. Such a question may be impolite due to personal identity or privacy. In addition, unlike most countries in the world that prefer coffee, British people are more likely to have a cup of tea rather than coffee as it has a long story in Britain. It becomes part of daily routine in the UK. When traveling the UK, it is easy to find myriad tea shops or cafes. Afternoon tea is a well-known tradition in the UK that must be tried for foreigners. Overall, understanding social etiquette is imperative for foreigners, new foreigners in particular, when visiting the United Kingdom (UK) so that they will find it easier to adapt and interact with British people.

Generally, the British people usually are more likely to live independently. When they grow up, they will choose to live alone and separate from their family. They are used to living apart from their family. They sometimes gather around with their family at least once in a week. Additionally, some of them live together before getting married. They are in a relationship without marriage. In British, these are something can be accepted. That is something natural. Of these, some of the women live as single mothers. In case, it happened because of unstable marital relationships or marital disorder. Nevertheless, family relationships are well-established. While television reports and newspapers claimed that the nuclear family is disapproved. It happened caused by the increasing rates of unmarried cohabitation and divorce, there is no change in personal commitment in terms of kinship ties. Furthermore, about 70 percent of adults argued that people should have close relationships with family members, 55 percent argued that they should have close relationships with relatives which include uncles, aunts, and cousins; 60 percent argued that they would rather lay out the time with relatives than with friends; and roughly 80 percent say that relatives more substantial than friends. These various attitudes depend on the age and gender of people. Some people over the age of 40 tend to pay more attention to family relationships than younger people.

In summary, British people have diverse cultural aspects which are very engaging to discuss. Apart from its diverse ethnicity and how the family life rules, they also have strong social etiquette to rule the way someone will speak and act and to understand where and to whom they speak and act in order to accomplish welfare for humanity.

Introduction

Leave campaign is referred to a political campaign organization that supported Britain to withdraw from European Union (EU) in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, also known as the European referendum and Brexit referendum that took place on 23rd June 2016. Based on the result, there are 52% of the voters choose for the British to exit meanwhile the remaining, while 48% of British people agreed for the British to stay in the EU. The main reasons of those who supported this leave campaign were actually due to the migration crisis and the weaknesses of the EU’s economic system. The EU law allows the free movements of a citizen in any EU country to travel, live and work without any barriers with other EU countries. Therefore, this law automatically urges the British to recognize all EU citizens who want to move to British without take their education level, age matters, and job skills into consideration which may possible lead to an increase in the percentage of local citizens’ unemployment rate. British people the ones who are responsible directly to the bad impact, for example, criminal issues and job market competition created from the immigration process.

As migration came to be a defining issue in the Leave campaign, the global financial crisis of the European Union that occurred in 2008 has worsened the scenario. The financial crisis gives a big impact on the EU, especially to the new members for instance Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and more. Eurozone tried their best to overcome this financial crisis as fast as they can but of course, took plenty of years for the stabilization process. At this adjustment period, a lot of workers who are from the affected EU countries most probably decided to move to British for work searching purposes. For example workers from Ireland, Italy, Poland and Romania have flocked to the British in search of a job. According to the Brexit immigration report, there are about 333 000 net migrants coming to the UK in 2015. That is quite a huge number and significant for Britain’s size. The leave vote is primary as protect against the free movement of EU citizens. British people thought if the UK decided to leave the EU, the country itself can have a more rational immigration system for instance the point-based immigration system, sometimes known as merit-based immigration where a noncitizen’s eligibility to immigrate is determined by the result of points in a scoring system that may include several factors for example language, wealth, education level, job offer, and some other factors.

Leave campaign supporter

There are a lot of people who were behind the leave campaign with several reasons. But for this research, we only focus on the two most powerful influential leaders who brought about Brexit. They are Theresa May and Boris Johnson. Theresa Mary May, formerly known as Theresa May was born on 1st October 1956 (currently 63 years old in 2019) in Eastbourne, United Kingdom. May is the only child of Zaidee Mary and Hubert Brassier. She married to Philip May in September 1980. She is a British politician serving as British Prime Minister and was opposed by the Queen on 13 July 2016 to be a leader of the Conservative Party. As been mentioned before, David Cameron was the previous Prime Minister of the United Kingdom served for 6 years and 63 days starting from 2010 before May replacing him as the leader of the Conservative Party. After most of the voters choose Britain to leave the EU in the National Referendum held in July, Cameron then announced his resignation and he passed the baton to Theresa May. May had made Johnson as foreign secretary in her new government who the one that successfully led the Brexit Campaign in the 2016 Referendum.

Boris Johnson or his full name Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson was born in New York City on 19 Jun 1964 (currently 55 years old in 2019). Johnson is the child of wealthy upper middle-class English parents, Stanley Johnson and Charlotte Johnson Wahl, and has another 3 siblings who are Jo Johnson, Leo Johnson, and Rachel Johnson. In September 1987, he got married with his first wife Allegra Mostyn-Own in West Felton, Shropshire. He is a British politician, journalist, and popular historian. Previously back in 2001 to 2008, he had been the MP of Henley, followed by Mayor of London started from 2008 to 2016 and in 2016 until now he served as Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

It is understood that when most of the British voters voted for Brexit, it mean that the nation agreed to leave its membership in the EU. But because of the slim majority, 52% to 48%, a debate has arisen on what exactly the plan after withdrawal, only 2 options are available, it is either Soft Brexit or Hard Brexit. In a simple word, a soft Brexit more favorable by Remain supporters where Britain would still retain a strong relationship in economic terms and allow free movement of people among EU countries. Differ with Hard Brexit, must probably be voted by the Leave Supporters that make Britain completely regain control over its border.

Reasons to vote leave campaign

i) British will be free to trade with the whole world.

“Vote leave, let’s take back control” was a slogan created for the leave campaign. This clearly illustrated how British people do not want to be overruled anymore by EU judges. As far as we are concerned, the EU is one of the regional trading agreement types under the common market. A common market here is defined as a group of trading nations within the geographical area that imposing free or no duty of goods and services, in addition with a free movement of factors of production such as labor and capital across a national border within the economic bloc. In a short run, the effect formed from this regional trading agreement lead to static effects of economic integration which emphasize on productive efficiency and consumer welfare. The static effects can be subdivided into two which are trade creation effects, where the welfare gain will be increased to a certain level for some of the domestic production as the producers can get the raw materials for lower-cost import from another country under EU. On the other hand, another effect created under static side, namely the trade diversion effect which can lead to welfare lost benefits from lower-cost producers to relatively high-cost producers within the EU countries.

Therefore, British people thought by UK’s withdrawal, the country will be free to seize new trade opportunities with all other countries in the world outside the union. In a free trade environment, a country is free to make any trade agreement with the countries they favor. Therefore, the export of goods will become more efficient with attempting export goods from low-cost countries through their specialization to produce cheap exports. For example, the British may had chance to freely trade with China, a well-known country as the largest manufacturing sector and the world’s fastest-growing market, or with India, a developing mixed economy. In addition, by signing to their own trade deals, the British can evolve more job creation all over the world. The situation could lead to positive economic growth that vitally important to achieve as it is one of the features in economic development and would increase the chance to make Britain great again.

ii) British will be free to make their own law.

To begin, the British would need to pay a certain amount into the EU budget, namely the EU membership fee but the amount varies from year to year depending on the rebate that the UK gets according to their contribution to the EU. Most of the British people thought the money that Government spend to pay the membership fees can actually more useful to be used for other public development projects in the country. These include improving their National Health Service (NHS) which is the publicly funded national health care system in terms of quality improvement aspects. In April 2018, NHS England with NHS Improvement had merged to act as a single organization. It was a great opportunity to work together in achieving the same objective in the health service department. Other than NHS, Government can also implement other expansionary fiscal policies, for instance, increasing government spending in to maximize citizen welfare by building more schools and recreational parks, providing more subsidies and benefits to the farmer, and more.

In addition, by signing off the EU agreement, Britain will be gaining the ability to control its own border, especially regarding migration issues. The government may apply fairer and more systematic laws to tackle the migration problem that gives a negative impact to the country in the long-term period. In future decades, if there are poorer countries decided to join the EU, the British will face a big problem to deal with. That is why the majorities of British people choose to leave rather than remain in the European Union.

United Kingdom consists of the whole Great Britain Island includes four countries – England, Wales and Scotland as well as northern portion of Ireland. The population of the UK is around 62.8 million. The official language spoken is English. The capital of Britain which is London, well known for its great financial, cultural and others. This state’s biggest export is English language that is spoken widely in every corner of the world. The unique culture of Britain includes literature, film, music and television.

The UK is the fifth world’s largest economy. UK’s great economy contributes to high quality of life, proving that their people’s work culture is among the best, considering that with diverse culture they still manage to maintain their work integrity. In addition, the unemployment rate is 4.2% at the end of July 2018, which can be considered very low compared to other developed countries. In London and the south east, the economic growth is more focused. Meanwhile, unemployment rate is higher in the north of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Although the cost of living in the UK is high, but it is a safe country to live. The British people is often referred as the Brits.

The People Social System

According to Merriam-Webster, social system is the patterned series of interrelationships between individuals, groups and institutions forming a coherent whole which builds the social structure. The social structure of the United Kingdom has been highly influenced by the concept of social class since long time ago. According to The Telegraph website, there are 7 social classes in the UK. It sorted the British citizens into seven distinct social groups, ranging from the precariat to the elite. Since the traditional 3 social classes is considered as out of date, Professor Mike Savage came up with a new way in order to sort the Brits into social groups.

The group that is on the top of the list is the elite, which is the wealthy people. They are the privileged group as they earn prosperous amount of salaries. Their high amount of economic capitals sets them apart from everyone else. They went to elite school and universities for education.

Next is the established middle class. They are the second wealthiest group among all the social groups. There are about 25% of them among British people. The occupation includes electrical engineers, social workers, occupational therapists, environmental professionals and town planning officials.

The technical middle class is a new class category. This category is quite small which is only 6% compared to other categories. They have high economic capital but are less culturally engaged. The majority of this group are young and live in the urban areas. Most of them works in science and technology.

New affluent workers which consists of 15%, have higher level of cultural and social capital. They are young and active group. They are at the moderate level of economic capital. Their occupations include electricians, postal workers, retail cashiers, plumbers and technicians.

Traditional working class consists of 14% of the British society. They have low economic capital but they have assets such as house and social contacts. Their average age is older than other groups. Their typical occupation includes care workers, cleaners and lorry drivers.

The next class is the emergent service workers. This newly established class consists of 19% of the society and are not financially secure, but however they have high levels of social capital and culture. This group consist of young people and can be found in urban areas. Occupations of this social group including bar staff, chefs, customer service occupations and musicians.

Last but not least is the precariat which consists 15% of the society. This group has the lowest levels of economic capital, social capital and culture. Their occupation includes carpenter, caretakers, travel service and shopkeepers.

Belief System

In the United Kingdom, the people lives in a diverse faith society. Most of the schools, hospitals, airports and other public places that provide a prayer room that anyone is allowed to use for religious needs. Its multiculturalism history has even brought them to establish law regarding religious discrimination, which shows that any kind of religion is opened to be practiced in the UK.

Christianity is the official religion in the UK. Therefore, it is easy to find churches at most of the places throughout the country. The main other religion practiced is Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism and Buddhism.

It is easier find a place of practising other faiths and the community of the religions in larger cities. In such places, you may find mosque, gurdwara, temple and synagogue. If there is a big community of a faith practiser in some place, then it would be easier to find additional things that are related to their religion. For instance, if a place consists of large Muslim population, it will be easier to find halal food in that area.

The Norm

The British people are very punctual. Being late will be considered as rude for most of them. They really are strict about being on time. If their work is at 10am, they must be there by 10am. It is important for them to ensure their late arrivals to be avoided.

Other than that, it is normal to see British people to queue everywhere – at the supermarkets, train stations, bank. Unlike in some other places where jumping the lines is acceptable, they are really disciplined when it comes to queuing, whoever violates the queue will receive negative looks from those who patiently waits in their line. If it requires you to do so, you may ask politely then state your reason why and they will happily let you to move ahead the line.

On the other hand, the British people is well known for their good manners. Foreigners are often surprised by how polite is their language and how they act. “Thank you” and “please” are widely used in their conversations. It is in their culture too for over apologising. They would simply say sorry even if it is for small matters such as asking a question or for accidentally bumping into others. Being polite at work will help for someone to be respected from other colleague.

The other etiquette that is famous among the Brits is to greet people they meet. The most common way to greet new people they meet is by shaking hands and say “Pleased to meet you”. Meanwhile, they usually hug and kiss on the cheeks among family, close friends and relatives. Verbal greetings like “hello” and “hi” are commonly used to greet people.

The British people are widely known for their drinking tea culture. Tea is a large part of daily life in the UK. Tea is not only a drink for them, it is also an essential element of the country. According to history, The East India Company was the first to brought tea the UK in early 17th century. It was sold at expensive price that most people could not afford to enjoy them back then. But, the price of tea eventually fell, making it available to everyone. Now, having this beverage while having conversation is one of the way for the Brits to socialize. They even have tea breaks at work place.

The World War I continued for four years and was one of the most expensive. This war was much more advanced than any previous wars, as not only had it killed over 16 million men, it had managed to create lasting economic and social changes to British society. Whilst some of these changes can be seen very positively because the war resulted in many developments in medicine and warfare. However, some of these changes can be seen as having caused detrimental effects on British society. This could be because this war had ultimately paved the way for a second war thirty years later. Due to this, it could be argued that the effects of this war had brought about lasting changes to how British society had dealt with moving on from this. Many of these lasting changes may have been the emotions people had to deal with from the war. This is because many children were left without their fathers and had to adapt in different ways. In addition to this, other changes impacted British society due to the war. This included the fact that social life in Britain had changed, women had to run businesses while the men were at war. People all wanted better living standards. There is a key debate as to how impactful the first world war was in bringing about lasting changes to British society. Whereas, some claim that the World War I only brought about temporary changes in British society. This essay will advance the argument that in fact, the first world war did bring about lasting changes in British society. To prove this, I will first explain how it could be argued to a large extent that the World War I had brought about lasting changes in British society. I will do this by explaining how the first world war had impacted the lives of British men who had served during the war to a large extent in which it had affected their masculinity. Secondly, I will explore how the political impact of the war had produced lasting changes such as the fact that new measures had been introduced. This included the fact all men over the age of 21 were able to vote 1918 onwards. Thirdly, I will consider how the World War I impacted social classes. The war introduced full employment measures for all. This meant that many individuals were able to receive income. In addition to this, rationing measures were introduced which impacted and decreased the levels of poverty in Britain by the end of the war.

Struggle for Domestic Masculinity and Women Being Able to Vote

Upon reading ‘Struggle for Domestic Masculinity’ by Jessica Meyer, it became evident that the war had brought about lasting changes to British society. Most men who had survived the war “were left disabled”. This meant that most men were left scarred from their experiences on the frontline from what they experienced and saw. Going back to reality for most of these men was not an option. These men were left psychologically traumatised and British society during this time was unable to recognise this as a disability. Psychological trauma is mental and not physical and so people were unable to ‘see their evidence of war service and their willingness to sacrifice themselves”. This meant that the number of those left with psychological disabilities in Britain had ultimately increased. Their trauma had been left untreated and was never recognised as a real struggle and illness. These men were “abandoned” by British society. The first world war can be seen as bringing about lasting changes in British society as it had created a community that neglected men with mental disabilities and only emphasised the “mourning and comfort for the bereaved” rather than appreciating and celebrating the men who served in the war and survived. It is evident that many of these men felt isolated and abandoned not only from their family that they had returned to who did not share the same experiences as them at war but also from the government. Meyer explains that the government “failed to provide enough resources for the retraining of the disabled”. This meant that many of these had to rely on independent voluntary organisations who were able to provide them with the treatment and shelter they needed. Men who had experienced the traumatic events of World War I were negatively affected – both financially and mentally. This damage was something the government did not take into account and therefore, they were deprived of any support. This had lasting changes in British society as they were forced to depend on other private voluntary organisations. The families were also negatively affected by this lack of support from the government for the men that went to war. However, it may be argued to a small extent that this was only a temporary change caused by World War I. This may be due to the fact after this war, doctors were unaware of emotional trauma and so doctors were then able to “to study the emotional as opposed to the physical stress of war”. Although it only until 1975, doctors were able recognise the mental impact of war on men. This means that, although after the first world war, many men dealt with psychological trauma, which meant they were no longer dependent on the government, it had opened up opportunities for doctors to begin to find ways to help them. Thus, it could be argued that the first world war brought about a lasting change in allowing doctors to help those with psychological illnesses.

In addition to this another in which the war could be seen as having brought about lasting changes to British society is because, after the war, roles within the family had been largely impacted. Men had been away at war for a long period and so the women in the family had to take up both roles. Women started to seek employment and ultimately had become the ‘breadwinner’ of the family since the husband was away at war. This meant that when men returned from the war, their “masculine roles they had anticipated inhabiting upon their return to civilian life”. This is because men were away for four years and so the home had changed immensely. Many men who served in the war felt distanced from their families and the life they lived before leaving for war. Society in Britain had immensely changed whilst men were at war over the four years. Whilst men were away at the frontline, women began to take up the jobs in place of their husbands. In 1918, women over the age of 30 with a certain qualification were allowed to now vote. The war had paved the way and allowed for new opportunities for women that were once only reserved for men. The war had ultimately allowed for women to now have jobs outside of the home. Therefore, it could be argued that the war brought about lasting changes in British society because it meant that women were no longer tied to their homes and having the task of bringing up their children. Women were now given this new independence, giving a “boost to demands for women’s emancipation”.

The Economic Impact of World War I

To a large extent, it can be proven the World War I did bring about lasting economic changes to British society. This is because it had initiated many developments in medicine. Due to the war, modern surgery was able to develop, whereby military hospitals allowed for experiments in medical procedures to take place. This meant that hospitals and treatments were able to develop. In addition to this, as many came back from war with injuries and disfiguration, hospitals were now able to provide treatment and develop their knowledge. As hospitals developed, the death rate slightly decreased. Blood banks had also developed after the discovery in 1914 that blood could be prevented from clotting. Therefore, due to this, it could be argued to a large extent the first world war brought about lasting changes as it led to key developments that were essential to society and the well-being of civilians.

The Pity of War

After reading Ferguson’s ‘The Pity of War’, it became evident that lasting changes were brought on by the war due to several reasons. This may be because the first world war had such a powerful impact on British society that these changes were put in place to prevent another war. Ferguson explains that schools had placed such an impact on the war to such an extent that schools would dedicate the “memory of those who had died in the war”. He explains that he felt as if he was “educated literally inside a war memorial”. From this, I can infer that British society had brought about lasting change in British society. This is because to this day, the war is still remembered. November 11th marks the end of the first world war and the day an armistice was signed between Germany and the allies, calling for an end to the war. The fact that still a century later, the lives lost, and the legacy of the war is still remembered and honored enforces the fact that this war had such a profound influence on millions of people. This means that the first world war brought about a lasting change in ensuring British society remembers this war and remember those who lost their lives fighting for their country.

Class and status

To a certain extent, it could be argued that the first world war had brought about lasting changes in British society. This is because after reading a journal in which B.A Waites wrote, it became evident that the war was able to overcome and change societal structures that existed. After the war, society had improved, allowing for the poor to live better lives due to the government “raising the wages of unskilled workers” and developments in healthcare. Waites explains that this was primarily the result of the first world war as it had allowed for the “development of the economy and society”. This means that war had affected British society in a positive that had opened up opportunities for many individuals. To further support this claim, a survey produced by Bowley and Hogg verified the fact that the war had bought about lasting changes in improving the wellbeing of others. This is because the “consequences of the war for the labour market had reduced levels of primary poverty by more than half”.

Conclusion

To conclude, although it could be argued to a large extent that in fact due to the World War I, a lot had changed in British society. The war opened up countless opportunities for women that were once restricted only to men. In addition to this, mental illness was recognised as a real issue in which doctors now can understand and treat. Perhaps the biggest change is that military power is far less significant in European politics than it was a century ago. There is little or no appetite for using force to achieve political goals. It could be argued to a lesser extent that some temporary adjustments were put in place in British society due to the war. This included the fact that the war had improved the working-class standards of living. In addition to this, technology and propaganda had become an essential element through war. Ultimately, the World War I had “altered the relative economic and social positions of major groups in society”.

The Declaration of Independence was a reaction to the domineering British principle and their want to be free from its force. During 1774, individuals had begun to understand that no person was less than another through Enlightenment. In this sense, they needed to be as free and autonomous as colonizers, with the capacity to make their very own overseeing rules including their enactments. Subsequently, Americans expected to evacuate the obstructions to their opportunities and violators of their human rights.

One of the manners by which the Enlightenment influenced the Declaration was in the need to have Americans making their own laws and guarding their entitlement to life, freedom, and settling on possess social decisions instead of those forced on them by the British. These thoughts are placed as the realities and reasons that united the thirteen states. For example, a piece of the Declaration expresses that “…He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected… the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within”.

Additionally, the fundamental creator of the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson was instrumental in giving the archive its substance, power, voice, and shape for what it’s worth. Being the pioneer of individuals, he voiced his dissatisfaction with how Americans were denied the privilege to pick their own pioneers into the parliament. These are established rights that guarantee that popular government is rehearsed. Additionally, human rights are secured by officials who make them. As an outcome, when Jefferson saw that these rights were being encroached upon, he guaranteed that he discovers methods for enabling the subjects to appreciate them. That is the reason he incorporated their infringement as one of the justifications for challenging provincial standards through the Declaration.

Also, the Declaration obviously shows that Americans were oppressed. They were paying compulsory and over the top taxes; they had to serve in the military to help the British government; their kin were slaughtered at the smallest chance, and the laws administering their reality were made by the British who neither knew nor comprehended the American individuals’ needs and needs. All this data is set down in the Declaration as “facts submitted to an open world”. Here, the realities are outlines of the sufferings and they should be autonomous from the provincial principle.

Oppositely, although the Declaration of Independence was surrounded by the need to have American political portrayal, opportunity, and fairness for each native, it sidelined a few areas of the populace, which were the ladies and minorities. These gathering of individuals were the most influenced by the pilgrim rule, which constrained them to give work to next to zero compensation by any means. There is no part of the announcement that states anything about their torment and abuse by the pilgrim system.

Hence, it is constantly accepted that the main individuals who confronted abuse and sufferings were men who served in the military, the American chiefs who were denied the chance to make their own laws appropriate for Americans’ needs, and the men who made good on regulatory expenses as the leaders of their families.

In synopsis, the Declaration of Independence is a significant wellspring of American history. The primary creator, Thomas Jefferson, applied his political learning and experience to draft the content, which allowed the natives a chance to practice sacred privileges of correspondence, right to life, and right of freedom as against the colonizers. Likewise, the report was molded by the Enlightenment thoughts, which called for the humane treatment of every person. In any case, the source was selective of women’s and minorities’ situations as it totally neglected to specify how they were abused.