Brexit: UK-EU summit could 'reduce Irish Sea border impact'
A UK-EU summit is likely to pave the way for a deal which could substantially reduce the impact of the Irish Sea border.The UK wants to reset its post-Brexit relationship with the European Union ( EU) after years of tension.Monday's summit is expected to include an "agreement to agree" on trade issues, including the trade in food and agricultural products.If a full agri-food deal follows, potentially later this year, that will reduce the need for checks and controls on products being sent from GB to Northern Ireland.
It could mean the end of 'Not for EU' labelling and the removal of most physical checks on goods.
One food business in Belfast said the reset cannot come soon enough and that immediate measures are needed to help small firms.BBC News NI first spoke to the owners of Arcadia Deli in 2020 before the sea border started to be implemented. They have faced continuous struggles with the processes needed to get products from GB.Co-owner Laura Graham-Brown said that new sea border rules on parcels have made the situation much worse in the last month. "Our partners in England have decided they are not supplying Northern Ireland until further notice until they can get some clarification on how to make it easier," she said."That is our biggest distributor so it is starting to tell on our counter as it becomes increasingly empty."She said she would welcome any deal that improves the situation but said something needs to change soon."All we want to do is sell cheese and olives. In order to keep stocking our shelves we need something to happen fairly quickly," she said.There are no guarantees about the scope of the agreement being negotiated and, on its own, it would not eliminate the sea border.Stuart Anderson from NI Chamber of Commerce said businesses would take time to analyse the detail of any deal."NI Chamber has been calling on the UK government to reach an agreement that is ambitious enough to substantially reduce bureaucracy for all operators in our agrifood supply chain," he said.
It comes as a poll from Queen's University Belfast suggests dwindling unionist support for Northern Ireland's current Brexit deal, the Windsor Framework.Professor David Phinnemore said there was an "evident drop" in the already limited unionist support that exists for the Windsor Framework particularly among those identifying as "slightly unionist".Support among that group has fallen from 51% to 26% over the last year.Prof Phinnimore said: "If that trend is to be reversed, a closer UK-EU relationship needs to deliver on reducing obstacles to the GB-NI movement of goods."
What has the UK government said?
The Labour government made a manifesto commitment to seek a new agri-food agreement with the EU which, it said, would aim to "eliminate most border checks created by the Tory Brexit deal".The deal would apply to the UK as a whole but would have the biggest impact in Northern Ireland.That is because NI is still effectively inside the EU's single market for goods but its supermarkets are mainly supplied from the UK.The Centre for European Reform (CER), a think tank, said that an agri-food deal would not be of "great macroeconomic significance" for the UK as a whole but that NI would be a "major beneficiary".It added: "The closer UK regulations come to those of the EU, the less is the need for border controls on goods crossing the Irish Sea from Great Britain to Northern Ireland."
What is the Irish Sea border?
The Irish Sea border continues to have an impact on Northern Ireland's politics and its economy.It came about as the result of a Brexit deal between the EU and UK in 2019, which was revised in 2023, and is now known as the Windsor Framework.It was agreed that the most practical way to keep the border open between NI and the Republic of Ireland was for NI to follow many EU laws on the regulation of goods.This means that goods coming from the rest of the UK into NI face checks and controls to ensure they meet EU rules.For many nationalists in NI, this is a necessary compromise to minimise the impact of Brexit on the island of Ireland.For many unionists it is a constitutional affront which undermines NI's place in the UK.The largest unionist party, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), prevented NI's power-sharing government from operating between 2022 and 2024 in protest.
How could an agri-food deal change things?
Agri-food deals from the EU fall into two broad categories: New Zealand-style or Swiss-style.The EU's deal with New Zealand means that each party recognises that the other has high food standards and so the frequency of checks on products and paperwork is reduced.However, New Zealand still sets its own standards and a proportion of goods are still checked as they enter the EU.By contrast there are no regulatory border controls for trade in agri-food products between Switzerland and the EU.But the Swiss only have this deal because they agreed to follow EU rules almost to the letter, without much say in setting those rules.Switzerland is obliged to modify its laws in response to changes in EU legislation, what is known as dynamic alignment, and accept oversight from the European Court of Justice.A Swiss-style deal would mean controls on GB food products entering NI could be effectively ended.The EU has previously said this deal would be on offer to the UK but the government had retained an ambivalent stance on whether it would accept this.However in recent weeks ministers have been careful not to rule it out.Such a deal will face opposition from Brexit supporters who say it would involve surrendering powers which were returned to the UK after it left the EU.
What border processes would remain?
The Irish Sea is really two borders.One deals with products' standards - making sure goods can be legally sold. The other deals with customs - making sure the correct tariffs have been paid.An agri-food deal would go a long way to removing the standards border but it would leave the customs border untouched.Businesses in GB would still have to make customs declarations for goods going to NI with the risk that goods would be delayed if the paperwork is incorrect.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
35 minutes ago
- BBC News
Tariffs: US-China talks end with plan for Trump and Xi to approve
The US and China say they have agreed in principle to a framework for de-escalating trade tensions between the world's two biggest Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said the deal should result in restrictions on rare earths and magnets being sides said they would now take the plan to their country's presidents - Donald Trump and Xi Jinping - for announcement came after two days of negotiations in London between top officials from Beijing and Washington. Chinese exports of rare earth minerals, which are crucial for modern technology, were high on the agenda of the month, Washington and Beijing agreed a temporary truce over trade tariffs but each country has since accused the other of breaching the deal."We have reached a framework to implement the Geneva consensus," Lutnick told reporters."Once the presidents approve it, we will then seek to implement it," he added."The two sides have, in principle, reached a framework for implementing the consensus reached by the two heads of state during the phone call on June 5th and the consensus reached at the Geneva meeting," Li said.
North Wales Chronicle
35 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Starmer and Reynolds meet US commerce secretary in push to implement trade deal
The Prime Minister dropped in on a meeting between Howard Lutnick and Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds in Downing Street on Tuesday. Mr Lutnick was in London for talks with China on resolving the trade war between Washington and Beijing, and Mr Reynolds took the opportunity to meet him in person to push for the UK-US trade deal announced last month to be implemented as soon as possible. The meeting follows talks between the Business Secretary and US trade representative Jamieson Greer in Paris last week. Under the terms of the agreement announced by Sir Keir and Donald Trump, the US will implement import quotas that will effectively eliminate tariffs on British steel and cut the levy on vehicles to 10%. But the deal has yet to be implemented and tariffs on both steel and cars remain at 25%, although the UK has been spared the increase on steel duties to 50% that Mr Trump imposed on the rest of the world last week. In a post on social media, Mr Reynolds said he had discussed 'progress on our trade deal – including UK autos and steel' with Mr Lutnick. UK officials remain hopeful that the deal will be implemented soon, but Tuesday's meeting does not appear to have moved the issue beyond both sides agreeing the need to move quickly. Speaking in the Commons last week, Sir Keir said he was 'very confident' that tariffs would come down in line with the deal 'within a very short time'. Implementing the deal will require the UK to pass legislation, likely to involve regulations rather than a full Act of Parliament, while the US will also need to create a legal mechanism to bring steel and vehicle quotas into effect.
Reuters
38 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, U.S. appeals court decides
June 10 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump's most sweeping tariffs to remain in effect on Tuesday while it reviews a lower court decision blocking them on grounds that Trump had exceeded his authority by imposing them. The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. means Trump may continue to enforce, for now, his "Liberation Day" tariffs on imports from most U.S. trading partners, as well as a separate set of tariffs levied on Canada, China and Mexico. The appeals court has yet to rule on whether the tariffs are permissible under an emergency economic powers act that Trump cited to justify them, but it allowed the tariffs to remain in place while the appeals play out. The tariffs, used by Trump as negotiating leverage with U.S. trading partners, and their on-again, off-again nature have shocked markets and whipsawed companies of all sizes as they seek to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. The ruling has no impact on other tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled on May 28 that the U.S. Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to levy taxes and tariffs, and that the president had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law intended to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during national emergencies. The Trump administration quickly appealed the ruling, and the Federal Circuit in Washington put the lower court decision on hold the next day while it considered whether to impose a longer-term pause. The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small U.S. businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties and the other by 12 U.S. states. Trump has claimed broad authority to set tariffs under IEEPA. The 1977 law has historically been used to impose sanctions on enemies of the U.S. or freeze their assets. Trump is the first U.S. president to use it to impose tariffs. Trump has said that the tariffs imposed in February on Canada, China and Mexico were to fight illegal fentanyl trafficking at U.S. borders, denied by the three countries, and that the across-the-board tariffs on all U.S. trading partners imposed in April were a response to the U.S. trade deficit. The states and small businesses had argued the tariffs were not a legal or appropriate way to address those matters, and the small businesses argued that the decades-long U.S. practice of buying more goods than it exports does not qualify as an emergency that would trigger IEEPA. At least five other court cases have challenged the tariffs justified under the emergency economic powers act, including other small businesses and the state of California. One of those cases, in federal court in Washington, D.C., also resulted in an initial ruling against the tariffs, and no court has yet backed the unlimited emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed.
