MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2345900932 · doi:10.1093/jeclap/lpw029

Brexit and EU Competition Policy

2016· article· en· W2345900932 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of European Competition Law & Practice · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Services Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrexitReferendumCompetition (biology)European unionPolitical scienceIndependence (probability theory)Northern irelandInternational tradeEconomicsPoliticsLawHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many voters in the ‘Brexit’ referendum, myself included, are appalled at the prospect of a UK withdrawal from the European Union: whether we are a majority or a minority will not be known until the early hours of 24 June. Issues of the most profound importance are at stake, for the UK, the EU and, indeed, the wider world. A likely side effect of Brexit would be a second referendum on Scottish independence from the UK, with a high probability that the Scottish electorate would choose to leave. I do not know what the ‘new’ state to emerge from this process would be called: not Great Britain, as that expression includes Scotland; not the United Kingdom, as that is an amalgam of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; and not England, as that would exclude Wales and Northern Ireland. An inelegant—and appropriate— working name is ‘the Residual UK’, as unattractive as the prospect itself. What impact would Brexit have on the competition policy of the EU, the Residual UK and Scotland? Assuming that the UK were to leave the EU, the EU would have to decide what future relationship it wishes to have with the Residual UK. The EEA option? The Swiss option? The Turkish option? The Canadian option (a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement was agreed between the EU and Canada on 29 February 2016)? Specifically in relation to competition policy, Brexit, absent some new arrangement, would bring an end to one-stop merger control under the EU Merger Regulation (and the associated case-reallocation mechanisms in Articles 4, 9, and 22 of that Regulation). The competition authority of the residual UK would also be able to investigate antitrust infringements independently of the European Commission’s own investigations under Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. This extra layer of control will not be welcomed by business as it will involve extra expense and uncertainty, and would involve unnecessary duplication of work on the part of competition authorities. A different effect of Brexit would be the departure of the UK from the European Competition Network and the termination of its role in the development of EU competition law and policy. I hope that it is neither presumptuous nor arrogant to suggest that British lawyers, economists, officials, and academics have made positive contributions in this sphere over the years and that the absence of the UK would be a loss. To give two examples of British influence, the UK made major contributions to the debate about the reform of the EU Merger Regulation in the early years of the 2000s and again to the complex issue of the ‘reform’ of Article 102 TFEU later in that decade. Of course, the Residual UK would continue to be heard in the OECD and the ICN (assuming it were to be admitted!); and a cooperation agreement of some kind could be negotiated with the EU, in the same way that the EU has agreements, for example, with the USA, Canada, and Switzerland. However, a cooperation agreement would be very different from being a major player within the current institutional framework of the EU. At the level of the Residual UK and Scotland, I assume that an independent Scotland would establish its own competition regime: indeed, to be admitted as a new Member State of the EU, it would be required to do so; Scotland would then become a member of the ECN. There is something quite attractive about the creation of a Scottish Competition Tribunal, which would inevitably become known as ‘SCOT’: however, Brexit is a high price to pay for this verbal pleasantry. As for the Residual UK, on day one of Brexit, the Competition Act 1998 would remain in place. But if the more extreme Brexiteers were to come to power, I assume that section 60 of the Competition Act, which requires the competition authorities and the courts of the UK to maintain consistency with the general principles and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice and to have regard to the decisions of the European Commission, would have to be repealed. Many Brexiteers hold the utmost contempt for the Court of Justice, as also for the European Court of Human Rights (which a distressingly large number of people assume to be an institution of the European Union). It seems unlikely that people of this disposition would be willing to leave section 60 in place since Brexit is about the restoration of national sovereignty and freedom from the ‘meddling’ in internal affairs by the Courts in Luxembourg and Strasbourg. Repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 would, of course, bring

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.374 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it