The Next Step in the Partitioning of Our Country Took Effect This Week

Jim Allister KC MP explains how the phased implementation of the Irish Sea border, most recently extended to business parcel movements on 1 May 2025, continues to undermine Northern Ireland’s economic and constitutional ties with Great Britain, imposing costly and complex trade barriers that particularly harm manufacturers and reflect a broader injustice stemming from EU-imposed rules without democratic consent.

One of the challenges facing people in any part of the UK seeking to come to terms with the partitioning of our country by the EU is that its architects are building their border gradually.

Notwithstanding the fact that in one sense it arrived on 1 January 2021, there are other senses, as I highlighted in my Westminster Hall debate this week, in which it is still being constructed.

1 May 2025 witnessed the arrival, for the very first time, of the Irish Sea border in relation to ‘business to business’ goods movements from Great Britain to Northern Ireland where those goods are conveyed in parcels.

The application of the Irish Sea Border to parcels movements might seem like a relatively modest development. It is, however, my contention that it presents a serious challenge, especially to many Northern Ireland manufacturing companies.

Northern Ireland’s economy has for two hundred years been fully integrated with the economy of Great Britain. Even before the South broke away, dividing the island of Ireland, the key relationships between manufacturers in what became Northern Ireland were with Great Britain, and especially England, rather than the South of Ireland. That remains very much the case today – there are around 4,500 manufacturers in Northern Ireland but relatively few in the Republic. In this context Northern Ireland manufacturers have long depended on being in relationship with the rest of our home economy, Great Britain, which has supplied the overwhelming majority of our manufacturing inputs.

The threat posed by the imposition of a customs border dividing the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland into two has been to put Northern Ireland manufacturers in a position where instead of being able to access their inputs from the rest of their home economy, Great Britain, as would part of any other country, they now find that EU partitioning has made Great Britain a ‘third’ or ‘foreign country’ in relation to us. Those inputs can now only move from Great Britain to Northern Ireland with an export number, a customs declaration, border control post checks and paying duty where required. The cost of negotiating the border is such that businesses are now pausing expansion in Northern Ireland in favour or elsewhere.

The significance of 1 May in all this is that up until now it has been possible for manufacturers and others to avoid the border to the extent that they have been able to move their inputs in parcels. From 1 May, however, and notwithstanding the absence of any evidence that the free movement of these parcels has damaged the EU single market in any way, this option has been taken from them. Now it does not matter whether businesses move goods inputs from GB to NI in parcels or not, they are subject to the partitioning of our country by the Irish Sea Border.

At this point someone might say, but what about the UK Internal Market Scheme (UKIMs)? The spin doctors tell us that this is a marvellous innovation and so long as businesses register on the scheme the border will largely melt away such that they will be left with minimal paperwork requirements. The truth is rather different.

The first problem is that the promised easements are only available for companies with a turnover of up to £2 million. Put another way, if your company has a turnover of more than £2 million you will have to make full customs declarations. While £2 million might sound like a lot of money to an individual, it is not for a company that employs more than ten people. Although there are some movements (some food, health, and construction materials) in relation to which the EU has intimated a willingness to waive the £2 million limit, in most contexts it will apply.

The second problem is that even if you comply with the ceiling imposed on Northern Ireland aspiration by the £2 million threshold, not all goods movements are eligible for this simplified procedure in any event. The Government has divided goods into three categories for the purpose of the UK Internal Market Scheme.

*Category 1 goods which have to be moved, regardless of the size of your business, subject to full customs declarations. They are ineligible for the simplified procedure.
*Category 2 goods which have to be moved, again regardless of the size of your business, subject to full customs declarations unless they do not fall under Category 1 and ‘an H8 controlled declaration, or a I1 C&F controlled declaration is submitted.’ Even in this event, however, full simplification is denied. ‘An 8-digit commodity code is required as well as licensing and documentary controls,’ and
*Standard Goods which can be moved via the simplified process.

Finally, even if you are under the £2 million threshold, and moving standard goods so you can access UKIMs easements, this does not have the effect of removing the border. You must still have an export number and provide information you don’t have to provide when moving goods within an internal market. You must also apply to become UKIMS registered which is complicated and you have to be subject to ongoing checks. None of these burdens are placed on you if you move goods within an internal market, as in GB, or in any other country for that matter. These burdens testify to the presence of the border.

Moreover, in considering all these points, we must never lose sight of the fact that the economic injustice is tied up in a constitutional injustice. The border has been called into being to protect the ‘integrity’ of an EU single market for goods which has been created through laws we have not made and cannot change, laws that have been imposed on us by means of the demeaning process of our disenfranchisement.

No self-respecting country with a future can allow itself to be treated in this way. Rather than looking to bow down even more abjectly to the EU, paying to give them the benefit of accessing our superior defence, we should now insist that they respect the territorial integrity of the UK. They should both reject the Irish Sea Border, and therein our disenfranchisement, and a hard border across the island of Ireland, by means of adopting Mutual Enforcement along the international border as set out in my EU Withdrawal (Arrangements) Private Members Bill.

Jim Allister KC MP

Follow Jim Allister KC MP on X here.

This article was first published by Parliament News on 2 May 2025.

---

This article (The Next Step in the Partitioning of Our Country Took Effect This Week) was published by Conservative Post and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Jim Allister KC MP

Featured image: shuddhashar.com

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.