A new agricultural agreement between the UK and EU will reduce some Brexit-related trade barriers but leave significant paperwork requirements in place, leaving thousands of British food exporters still facing costly administrative hurdles that have shuttered cross-border trade since 2020.
The sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement under negotiation would end physical checks on farm produce and eliminate the need for veterinary certificates that cost £200 each, the House of Lords European affairs committee heard on Tuesday. The deal would also remove requirements to label food as "Not for EU," which William Bain, head of trade policy at the British Chambers of Commerce, described as "a significant problem" for wholesalers and distributors.
Who Benefits—and Who Still Struggles
Bain said the agreement could reopen export markets for Scottish langoustines and molluscs, which before Brexit could reach Paris diners within a day of being fished. Many of these exports stopped entirely because border checks reduced the seafood's shelf life, devastating coastal fishing communities.
However, British exporters will still be required to complete customs, VAT, and safety and security declarations—a reality that underscores the incomplete recovery from Brexit's economic disruption. Up to 20,000 British businesses stopped exporting to the EU after the bloc implemented full Brexit border controls from day one, while the UK never applied equivalent controls and eventually opted for random inspections on fresh food.
The Dynamic Alignment Question
Labour's plan to reduce trade barriers involves "dynamic alignment," meaning the UK would apply all future EU rules and regulations related to farm produce. The agreement under negotiation would require accepting 76 laws either passed in Brussels or from which the UK has already diverged.
Shanker Singham, chair of the Growth Commission and a past adviser to MPs on Brexit alternatives in Northern Ireland, told peers the UK could have pursued "mutual recognition" of food standards similar to arrangements between New Zealand and the UK, which would avoid dynamic alignment. He argued the UK has significant leverage, noting that about 23% of the EU's global agrifood exports go to the UK, with "much less" going the other way.
"The interesting thing here is that the UK government hasn't really used the leverage it has," Singham said. "If you don't ask, you don't get. One has to be very, very careful when one is giving away one's own regulatory authority in any area."
Trade Experts Weigh Benefits
Sam Lowe, head of trade and market access practice at Flint Global, countered that dynamic alignment offers a crucial advantage: "Physical inspections would pretty much disappear," something a New Zealand-Australian style mutual recognition deal would not provide.
"What we're actually asking for is the EU to recognise our dynamic alignment, and in doing so, treat our exporters better," Lowe said. "The EU exporters have an advantage because the UK recognises their rules. So what we are actually doing is asking them to give us something back on that."
While the SPS agreement represents progress, its "modest" projected impact on the UK economy reflects the persistent costs of Brexit on businesses, particularly small and medium-sized exporters who lack resources to navigate complex administrative requirements.
Why This Matters:
The partial nature of this agreement highlights how Brexit continues to impose burdens on British businesses, particularly food exporters and fishing communities that depend on rapid cross-border trade. While removing veterinary certificates and physical checks would help, thousands of businesses that stopped exporting after Brexit face ongoing barriers through customs and VAT paperwork. The debate over dynamic alignment versus mutual recognition reflects fundamental questions about regulatory sovereignty versus market access—but for the 20,000 businesses that abandoned EU exports, and the workers and communities they supported, the practical question is whether any agreement can restore the seamless trade that existed before Brexit. The trade imbalance, with the EU sending far more agrifood to the UK than it receives, suggests British negotiators could secure better terms for exporters who continue bearing disproportionate costs from the UK's departure from the single market.