What next after Brexit? Considerations regarding the future relationship between the EU and the UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to be able to assess the future institutional relationship between the UK and the EU, this study organises the relevant facts systematically. This is done by using a framework in which two aspects are compared with each other: On the one hand, the extent of the Single Market access for the EU's current partners (incl. Norway, Switzerland and Canada), and on the other, the concessions agreed by these partners with the EU with regard to free movement of people, relinquishment of regulatory sovereignty (legal harmonisation with the EU) and payments to the EU. Here a clear reciprocity between give and take can be seen, which it is assumed will also be valid for the pending negotiations, particularly as the EU needs to prevent bandwagon effects in terms of other EU countries following the UK example to exit the EU. On this basis we discuss which concessions the UK might give and what extent of Single Market access the EU might grant in return, if it is to be guided by the existing integration models, and in addition takes into account the British trade deficit with the EU and the substantial political and military role played by the British. Although the UK would like to retain as broad access to the Single Market as possible, the political restrictions might mean that the UK can only offer medium level concessions overall: small regarding free movement of people, small to medium regarding payments to the EU, and medium to high regarding legal harmonisation with the EU. In this respect, there are clear parallels with the Swiss integration model, since Switzerland also gives the EU medium level concessions on average, and in return receives medium level access to the Single Market. However, in the case of the UK there would be a single overall agreement (rather than many individual agreements as in the case of Switzerland) and concessions would be distributed differently amongst the various categories.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".