Brexit: impacts on UK and EU trade
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The UK is holding a referendum on whether to continue its membership of the European Union. If more than 50% of voters say "Leave", Britain will head for the exit door. That would trigger one of the biggest shake ups in the EU's history and throw the UK and its European partners into unchartered economic and legal territory. One of the key questions is how Brexit would affect the UK's access both to the European Single Market and to wider global markets. We examine five models for the future trading relationship between the UK and EU if Brexit occurred. The models are: Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, Canada, and Australia. Each has its pros and cons, and many factors would determine the UK's preferred option. Indeed, the UK could aim to maximise its trade potential with a hybrid model of its own. The UK would face one major decision. If the country aimed to maintain full access to the EU Single Market under a Norwegian or Swiss model, the UK would need to continue to adopt a wide range of EU legislation, contribute to the EU budget and be open to the movement of EU nationals with greatly reduced influence over the EU law-making process. On the other hand, without full access to the Single Market under a Canadian or Australian model, UK exporters would face greater barriers to trade with the EU, with the associated risk of major job losses. Even once the UK decides on its preferred model, it cannot be guaranteed. Trade agreements require two or more partners, and the transition process would be full of legal, economic and political uncertainty. In Europe, Britain's exit terms would be shaped by the powerful national interests of 27 Member States and the European Parliament, each with their own preferences for post-Brexit trade. At the same time, countries outside the EU may be unwilling to continue their free trade regimes with the UK without a renegotiation. While the UK would be a large market with substantial negotiating power, it may not be able to win back the same level of market access previously negotiated by an even larger EU. If the UK does decide to separate from the EU, the divorce proceedings will be long and rocky.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 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".