ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
2
3
4
5
6
UK Evidence Based Brexit
7
Objective Scoring Model
8
9
Criteria
Model Explanation
10
Reasonable
Impact was explained at 2016 Referendum
OR
Clear unambiguous economic, growth, legal sovereignty or other rational stated by HMG in making the change
11
Unreasonable
Impact was not explained or expected as a result of the 2016 Referendum
AND
Case has been made and is unprecedented vs benchmarket of states outside EU
12
Harmful/Ideological
Impact exists for purely ideological reasons with no benefits to the UK
AND
No case made, UK position is unprecedented vs benchmark of neighbouring states outside EU
13
Black Hole
The impact is not clarified or cannot be scored
AND
The scale of the impact is potentially so high as to completely change the viability of Brexit
14
NOT Scored
This area is still in discussion and cannot be scored reliably
15
16
Normal Practice Benchmark
Australia and New Zealand
17
Reason for Selection
Selected from neighbours who share a British style legal system and have a primary sea border where air/fishing can be compared, sophisticated market economy (rules out Canada, rules out rest of East Asia, rules out India)
18
We note that an Australian type system was frequently referenced by the Prime Minister wrt UK EU relationship, as was an Australian type immigration system for UK immigration.
19
We conclude therefore that Australian type systems are broadly accepted and reasonable benchmarks for the UK
20
21
ContactTW@atatimelikethis
22
EM
@atatimelikethisnow@gmail.com
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100