Dan Boucher: The green lane has not gone or been replaced - it has simply been renamed as the UK Internal Market System so I have quit as DUP policy chief

Yes, it was not a perfect deal because the red lane remained but it would ensure that over 80% of goods moving from GB to NI would travel outside the red lane within the UK Internal Market System where the only constraints were the need to become a trusted trader, a one-off registration that was quick and easy, and intelligence led checks (as at any time) to deal with criminality and smuggling.

This was a big improvement on the Windsor Framework that needed to be banked. It did not mean that we would have to accept the red lane as currently conceived forever. We would continue the fight to make it smaller. The Party Executive concluded that this was a good deal and gave it their approval.

There was an immediate difficulty because the Windsor Framework (published on February 27, 2023) that announced the coming green lane legislation, talked in terms of the introduction of ‘a new UK Internal Market System (or the green lane).’

In other words, the UK Internal Market System (which was again defined as replacing the green lane in the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper published on January 31) was not new. It had always been the formal name of the green lane.

The question then arose, how can anyone claim there has been a big breakthrough by suggesting that the green lane has been replaced by something when that something is itself? This had all the hallmarks of a very lame Sunak conjuring trick.

This concern was greatly reinforced by two other developments that week. Removing the green lane would require removing the existing green lane legislation and yet the legislation published alongside Safeguarding the Union, to give effect to the deal, did not amend one word of that legislation, let alone repeal it.

There was also no indication on the part of the EU that it was moving to amend or repeal the two EU regulations that define the green lane: one dealing with customs, EU Regulation 1128, and the other with SPS requirements, EU Regulation 1231.

In this context I worked with concerned DUP parliamentarians to help highlight these points but there was a feeling that the final set of border regulations might change everything and that it would be unwise to say anything too strongly until that point.

The moment of truth came on March 21, with the publication of the final set of regulations, the Windsor Framework (Implementation) Regulations 2024. When I read them and saw that like the two earlier pieces of legislation, they do not amend one word of the green lane legislation let alone repeal it, the situation we faced was plain as day.

Far from securing a great victory such that ‘the green lane is gone’ so that over 80% of goods will have the opportunity to move freely subject to a one-off registration with a trusted trader scheme, and the possibility of intelligence led physical checks to prevent criminality and smuggling, the Irish Sea border remains fully in place for all goods moving from GB to NI.

If you move goods beyond the red lane, then call it what you like, the green lane, the UK Internal Market System or ‘the lane formerly known as green’, one is still required to take the same 11 steps in order to negotiate the border - 11 steps that were not required before January 1, 2021; 11 steps than businesses do not have to take when moving goods between England and Wales or Scotland and England, or indeed within any other internal market in the world; 11 steps that create serious border friction and cost, alienating Northern Ireland from the rest of our own country and internal market.

The truth is that in terms of the border fundamentals, Safeguarding the Union changes nothing and instead cements in the Windsor Framework (which we were told was not acceptable), the second part of which will come into operation with respect to customs on October 1, 2024.

I joined the DUP and moved to Northern Ireland because I regarded the decision of the UK government to give into EU pressure, offering up the 1.9 million UK citizens of Northern Ireland for disenfranchisement in 300 areas of law, and submitting to the cutting of our country in two by an international border, as a dishonourable act both of betrayal and abdication of responsibility.

I took this step because I want the best for Northern Ireland and the wider UK and to this end, I set out the above and wider concerns to the DUP leadership and asked them to revisit the Larchfield decision specifically in relation to supporting Safeguarding the Union (not the decision to return to Stormont) in light of the actual gains provided by the deal rather than those celebrated on January 29.

They indicated that, going forward, while there may be adjustments in emphasis, they will not revisit the basic decision. In light of this I have resigned not from the party but as director of policy and research.

I have not taken this step so I can go off and do something else, but so I have the freedom that a paid member of staff does not enjoy, to speak out to the wider membership and beyond. The situation we face is grave and the DUP does not have very much time.

I appeal to all the party officers and wider party membership to do the right thing, to completely disassociate themselves from Safeguarding the Union and set out a strategy for completely removing the Irish Sea border. There are alternative ways forward.

​

Dan Boucher has resigned as DUP director of policy and research.