The Irish Sea border, dividing Northern Ireland (NI) from Great Britain (GB), is defined by the Windsor Framework. It introduces ‘Not for EU’ labelling requirements for companies based in GB wishing to sell certain food products to Northern Ireland using the Green Lane. The next stage in the construction of the border comes on 1 July, less than three weeks away, when the requirement for Not for EU labelling will be expanded significantly.
In preparation for this date something very significant has happened.
Up until this point while opponents of the Irish Sea border have called out both its politically and economically destructive effects, the UK Government has sought to present it as a great economic opportunity.
They tell us that Northern Ireland is in a privileged position, enjoying dual market access. This will make us the Singapore of the Western Hemisphere!
Of course, it has always been clear to anyone with an A level in economics that this is a nonsense because the act of dividing Northern Ireland from Great Britain by means of an international Sanitary-Phyto-Sanitary (SPS) border and customs border was always going to remove our unfettered access to the production inputs that our businesses have long depended on accessing from Great Britain. In this context it is no surprise that both the Economy Minister and Head of Invest NI have been forced to acknowledge that in four years there has not been a single example of foreign direct investment into NI for the purpose of accessing dual market access.
Notwithstanding this reality, though, the Government has sought to maintain the pretence that the Irish Sea border is an economic win.
In preparing for 1 July, however, the Government has been forced to acknowledge not only that the Irish Sea border constitutes a threat to our economic wellbeing, but that this threat comes directly from the new definition of the Irish Sea border resulting from the Windsor Framework and its Green Lane, which were supposed to remove the border.
Specifically, the Government has acknowledged that the cost of complying with the new Green Lane Not for EU labelling requirements is such that GB businesses may stop selling to Northern Ireland. Indeed, such is the Government’s concern that they have published new legislation, less than a month before it is to come into effect (also on 1 July), to give ministers the power to impose Not for EU labels on the packaging of the same goods when sold in GB, to remove any incentive for GB businesses to withdraw from NI.
In this context, the Government’s explanatory notes accompanying the new legislation, the Retail Marking Regulations 2025, are very open about the economic risks we now face:
‘A much greater range of products will be brought into scope of [Not of EU] labelling requirements in July 2025, increasing the potential risk of product delisting [by GB providers with respect to NI consumers]. Therefore, the government requires a means of intervention to manage this risk and deter businesses from delisting products by providing a credible threat of enforcement.’
The extent of the difficulty, and limitation of the proposed solution, are both highlighted by the fact that the same explanatory notes imply that sometimes supply chain breakdown will happen before a minister can intervene.
6.5 ‘This approach also enables the Secretary of State to take swift action to prevent or reverse product delisting from the Northern Ireland market.’
Furthermore, although they acknowledge a risk to the Northern Ireland supply chain in the round, the Government only attempts to mitigate it through their proposed regulations in relation to large companies. They make no attempt to remove the threat that GB companies with a workforce of less than 50 might stop providing Northern Ireland. Many GB companies with less than fifty employees supply NI and their loss would have a very negative effect on consumer choice in Northern Ireland.
The truth is that had the biggest democratic vote in the history of the United Kingdom been honoured, and the whole United Kingdom left the EU, then there would be no Irish Sea Border and no Not for EU labels. No part of the country should be required to carry Not for EU labels, least of all by a piece of EU legislation that only pertains to the UK and was passed three years after we left the EU, EU Regulation 2023/1231. The Marking of Retail Product Regulations underscores the urgent need to now replace the Irish Sea border with Mutual Enforcement in relation to the international border, as proposed by my private member’s bill. As members of the House of Lords pointed out just last week, unlike current arrangements, Mutual Enforcement would meet all the Windsor Framework’s legal objectives, as set out in Article 1 of the Framework, presenting a ‘win win’ for both the European Union and the United Kingdom.
We should settle for nothing less.
The Government must think again – No part of the country should be required to carry Not for EU labels
