“The first time since Brexit the EU has asserted legislative power over the entire UK”

The EU makes regulations that apply not to itself, but to our entire United Kingdom

Montage © Facts4EU.Org 2025

“Government wants to show what compliant EU doormats we are, for no practical purpose”

In this report, we present both a video and a text summary of a remarkable address to a parliamentary committee by Jim Allister KC MP – party leader, barrister, and tireless defender of UK sovereignty.

This follows on from our very popular first sovereignty report about this issue on Monday and our summary of the Stand for Our Sovereignty campaign here.

The topic may sound niche – ‘The Marking of Retail Goods Regulations’ – but the consequences are anything but. Allister’s testimony was forensic, fearless, and frankly devastating. It should concern anyone who believes the UK, not the EU, should make our laws.

What follows is a paraphrased version of Mr Allister’s statement – mostly in our own words, occasionally quoting his – condensed to tell readers a very British story. A story that, so far, has no happy ending.

Firstly, here is Jim Allister's statement to the Committee. It is fully worth 10 minutes of your time to watch it.

This is the story of EU Regulation 2023/1231

• This is a regulation made not by our Parliament, but by a foreign political body: the EU.
• Even more extraordinarily, it does not apply to the EU, but to a non-EU country – the United Kingdom.
• It imposes laws on part of our own internal trade: from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.

Now it is set to go MUCH further. It will be the first time since Brexit that the EU has exercised direct legislative power over the whole of the UK.

Regulation 2023/1231 dictates that goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland must be labelled "Not for EU" - in three phases. The final phase kicks in on 1 July, just days from now.

The costs from the earlier phases have already pushed companies to withdraw from the Northern Ireland market.

Now, here is the most ludicrous aspect of this EU Regulation

So, GB suppliers face real costs to meet EU rules, but Irish customers face no restriction at all in buying the very goods the EU claims must be segregated.

It’s absurd. And yet it’s law.

The EU says this is about protecting its Single Market. Is it?

Why do goods need to be labelled "Not for EU"… …when anyone from the EU can just walk into Northern Ireland, buy them, and drive them back over the border?

Why is our Government enabling this farce?

Allister’s answer is stark:

“For the purpose only of showing what compliant doormats we are for the EU – for no practical purpose whatever.”

Burden on British business – for what?

Even before this latest phase, sending goods to NI involved:

1. Customs declarations (costly)
2. Membership of a Trusted Trader scheme (more cost)
3. And now: labelling goods as “Not for EU” – even if they never go near the EU

These are real costs. For zero EU benefit. And worse, they are already damaging the UK’s internal market.

The Government’s own memorandum admits this. It states the Irish Sea border is “discouraging trade”. And yet here we are, adding more red tape.

It hurts small producers. It hurts Northern Ireland. It serves no one.

Small businesses (under 50 employees) are exempt — but this simply means they’ll opt out of Northern Ireland altogether. It reduces their market, hurts consumers in NI, and penalises growth.

Most food producers are larger and will be forced to comply—even if they don’t trade with NI.

The Government's response is wholly disingenuous, but we publish it below nonetheless. We have covered the other points but let us just deal with their attempt to make light of the enormous product range that will be covered after Monday. Taking "pasta" as an example. Lasagne contains pasta. That's on the list of 'Not for EU' products. They mention cakes, but please don't think this means desserts are not covered. We will resist making a pun but trifle is on the list as one of many examples of dessert products. And just in case you're trying to eat healthily, fish is also on the list, whether fresh, chilled, or frozen, of any kind.

The Cabinet Office does not seem to have read the Government's own admission that: “a much greater range of products will be brought into scope of [Not for EU] labelling requirements in July 2025.”

This is regulation without justification.

And let us not forget: the Windsor Framework and the Protocol were identical in this regard. Neither protects trade. Both divide the UK.

There is a better way: mutual enforcement

If we must protect each other’s markets, let’s do it sensibly, as all other countries do.

• This is a regulation made not by our Parliament, but by a foreign political body: the EU.
• Mutual enforcement = each country makes sure its own exports meet the other’s standards.
• No need for border checks. No labelling burdens. No constitutional vandalism.
• But instead, this Government chooses theatrical compliance—so that the Prime Minister can say he’s a “faithful implementer of the Windsor Framework”.

Faithful to whom?

PART II – Regarding Northern Ireland, a nation within our United Kingdom

These draft regulations come in when there has been an indisputable, substantial and worrying diversion of trade in terms of the supply of goods and produce to Northern Ireland. This Government, like the last, are blind to that issue and do not want to take on the EU on any of these matters.

This isn’t theory. This is trade war by attrition. The ONS has confirmed a serious and growing diversion of trade from Great Britain to the EU via the Republic of Ireland. There is a mechanism to act: Article 16 of the Protocol. This came up when Mr Allister questioned the Minister, Daniel Zeichner, after the Minister raised the point about Article 16 being invoked.

Jim Allister was right and we do have the legal documents in front of us.

Article 16 (as amended by the Windsor Protocol)

“If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures.”

There’s no mention of “massive”.
No mention of “significant”.
Not even “serious” in relation to trade diversion.
The Minister was wrong. The Government should have acted.

[ Sources: Hansard | Jim Allister, TUV | Government legal assets register ] Politicians and journalists can contact us for details, as ever.

Brexit Facts4EU.Org, Thurs 26 June 2025

Click here to go to our news headlines

Please scroll down to COMMENT on the above article.
And don't forget actually to post your message after you have previewed it!

Any credit card user

Quick One-off

From £5 - £1,000

Monthly

From £3 per month