Brexit, 10 years on: Assessing the impact on the cycle trade
A decade after the Brexit referendum, the political noise has faded – but the commercial paperwork has not. Werner Müller-Schell speaks with leading figures from both the UK and EU bicycle industries to assess how separation has reshaped trade, influence and long-term strategy…
The Channel is only twenty miles wide between Dover and Calais – but since June 2016 it has come to feel considerably broader. That month, 51.9% of British voters chose to leave the European Union. Few in the bicycle industry – on either side of the water – anticipated how long the aftershocks would reverberate. Of course, nearly ten years on from the referendum, and five years since the UK’s definitive exit from the single market and customs union, Brexit has faded from headlines. But in supply chains, standards
committees and trade statistics, it remains stubbornly present.
“Quite quickly after the vote, there was a sense of the UK not being relevant anymore in European discussions – and vice versa. The reality was that people just moved on. And that is the reality across all layers of the bicycle industry to this day,” says Kevin Mayne. The former head of the industry federation Cycling Industries Europe is one of the bicycle sector’s most experienced policy voices in Brussels and observed the shift from close range. “Yes, Brexit has left its marks on both the European and UK bicycle industries,” he adds. It is an assessment Mayne is not alone in – a cross-section of executives, association leaders and market observers on both sides of the Channel describe a similar recalibration of trade flows, influence and strategic priorities since 2016.
From political shock to trade reality
First, a broader look back. The referendum of June 2016 did not immediately alter trading conditions; rather, it opened a prolonged period of negotiation, political turbulence and strategic uncertainty that weighed on investment decisions across industries. For more than four years, companies operated in a state of limbo, unsure which rules would ultimately govern cross-border commerce and reluctant to make long-term commitments. The United Kingdom formally left the European Union on 31 January 2020, but remained inside the single market and customs union during a transition phase designed to cushion the break. Only at the turn of the year 2021 did the new reality fully and irrevocably take hold.
This reality looks as follows: with the end of the transition period on January 1, 2021, the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement entered into force, defining the new framework for economic relations. While it successfully avoided tariffs for goods meeting rules-of-origin requirements, it simultaneously reintroduced customs declarations, VAT procedures and a range of regulatory formalities. What had once been frictionless internal trade within a shared market became third-country business almost overnight. Since then, goods flows have weakened, particularly among smaller exporters less able to absorb administrative burdens. Borders function today and processes are standardised, yet complexity and compliance costs remain structurally and permanently higher – Brexit has thus evolved from a political shock into an embedded trade reality.
This is also reflected in economic figures. Since the end of the transition period, goods flows have weakened significantly on both sides of the new border, particularly among smaller exporters less able to absorb administrative burdens. According to firm-level analysis cited in a 2025 European Parliament briefing, United Kingdom exports to the European Union have fallen more sharply – by around 6.4% since the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement – than European Union exports to the United Kingdom, with persistent drops below pre-Brexit baselines amid higher compliance costs for small and medium-sized enterprises. That same review of bilateral trade flows through 2024 confirms goods stagnation for both sides, though European Union services exports to the United Kingdom have rebounded past pre-pandemic levels while United Kingdom financial services lag.
How industry leaders absorbed the shock
If Brexit has shifted from political shock to structural trade reality, it is in the day-to-day operations of large manufacturers that this reality becomes tangible. For companies deeply embedded in European supply chains, the change was less about tariffs than about process. “At Schwalbe, the biggest challenge was the shift from an internal market business to full third-country processes,” recalls Steffen Jüngst, Team Lead Communication & PR at the German manufacturer. Customs declarations, origin checks and expanded documentation replaced what had once been routine intra-EU deliveries. Early on, interpretations of new rules varied among companies, customs authorities and logistics providers, causing delays and extra workload. Today, Jüngst says, processes have stabilised. Yet stabilisation does not mean simplification: compliance is more demanding, supply chains more tightly calibrated, and administrative costs structurally higher than before 2021.
Ortlieb faced similar structural adjustments, though with its own logistical particularities. If Schwalbe’s challenge lay primarily in regulatory recalibration, for the Bavarian equipment specialist, the early disruption was most visible at the border itself. “The unstable logistics were the most critical element,” recalls CEO Martin Esslinger. Compared to the immediate aftermath of Brexit, the situation has stabilised, he adds, but the level of complexity remains high. “Interestingly, local trade in the United Kingdom has benefited indirectly: since online direct sales from continental Europe have become significantly more difficult, our partners on the ground have been able to strengthen their market position. Despite this effect, our conviction remains clear: free and unhindered movement of goods is always the preferable foundation for healthy market development.”
Brompton, as a UK-based manufacturer, experienced the shift from the opposite side of the Channel. Where continental suppliers had to adapt to a newly external market, the London-based folding bike specialist suddenly found itself exporting into its largest trading partner under third-country conditions. “Today, the system works – but it is structurally more complex and expensive,” agrees CEO Will Butler-Adams with the previous industry voices. In anticipation of disruption, Brompton increased component inventory and scrutinised its supply chain to comply with rules-of-origin requirements under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. “The shift required more capital and a more conservative risk posture than pre-2016,” Butler-Adams adds.
Another perspective comes from Hayes Bicycle Group, the U.S. component specialist behind brands such as Manitou, Reynolds, ProTaper and Sunringle. Active across both the EU and UK markets, the company felt the impact directly. For Colin Williams, EMEA Aftermarket Account Manager, Brexit can be summed up in one word: “friction”. The shift to full customs procedures added costs and administrative layers, complicating supply to the UK. Changing UKCA requirements created further expense – some later rendered unnecessary. Hayes also had to rebuild its UK distribution after partners exited, now supplying from Munich. Delivery times remain longer than before 2021, though conditions have improved. “Since then, conditions have improved. More brands are adapting to the new trading framework. The government appears to be taking steps to reduce friction,” Williams says.
The numbers behind the friction
A 2024 study by Aston University confirms the broader trend. According to the results, the value of UK goods exports to the EU fell by 27% between 2021 and 2023, while imports dropped by 32%. Particularly affected were agriculture, textiles and wood products, with some export categories collapsing altogether. Researchers also note that 1,645 types of British goods disappeared from EU trade flows.
Smaller exporters were hit hardest, many abandoning EU markets as administrative costs mounted. While tariffs were largely avoided, non-tariff barriers – customs checks, VAT procedures and regulatory compliance – have steadily reduced trade intensity. Bicycles and related components were, however not mentioned.
If the data illustrate contraction, bicycle industry journalist Mark Sutton has watched it unfold in real time at shop-floor level. “There’s a literal and a sentimental answer to this,” he says. “In the literal sense, I watched on a year-to-year basis big swings in import and export trade that ultimately cut short some very fruitful relationships. In the sentimental sense, seeing first-hand relationships disintegrate and faith lost in trading partnerships has been extremely disheartening. A retail survey he conducted at the time found that “9 in 10 shops said they were doing less trade with Europe year-to-year when the effects started to really kick in, which is a pain felt up the chain.” Some businesses that later collapsed cited Brexit as a cause. “Now, I think it is beyond doubt that they were telling the truth, though Covid’s arrival clouded things somewhat.”
Beyond the numbers, Sutton describes a loss of confidence and influence. “As far as I can tell, we do not have a single example of the UK having a stronger trading hand than pre-Brexit with any country,” he argues. European brands, he notes, increasingly hesitate. “We saw many brands withdraw from the UK market,” and even today he fields inquiries that “sadly don’t materialise.” The additional paperwork and import charges “have become a barrier that has made trading more difficult, though not impossible.” While stability has improved compared with the immediate post-Brexit years, the UK, in Sutton’s assessment, has yet to regain the momentum it once enjoyed within Europe’s bicycle economy.
Institutions on the sidelines
From an institutional standpoint, the consequences of Brexit extend beyond customs forms and logistics costs. For Anke Schäffner, Head of Political Affairs at the German industry association ZIV – German Bicycle Industry, the initial phase was defined above all by uncertainty. Questions from member companies ranged from CE marking validity to the introduction of the UKCA label. “As an association, we received a number of inquiries from our members arising from the general uncertainty surrounding Brexit,” she recalls. In the meantime, routines have been established and regulatory questions clarified. Yet her overall assessment is sober: “Overall, Brexit has harmed the British much more than the European bicycle industry,” she observes.
On the British side, Kevin Mayne observes a more structural loss of influence. As former head of Cycling Industries Europe, he watched how the UK gradually disappeared from policy platforms, research frameworks and standards discussions. European cycling policy has advanced in areas such as sustainability, smart mobility and funding mechanisms–often without British participation. “You need to stay in those rooms,” Mayne has argued elsewhere. Recently, associations in the UK have begun to reengage through European umbrella bodies, but the dynamic has changed: instead of shaping frameworks from within, the UK increasingly finds itself reacting to rules formulated elsewhere. In Mayne’s assessment, “The UK has become a follower.”
A look into the future
If Brexit has become a managed constraint rather than a headline shock, the next question for industry leaders is whether that constraint can at least be softened. Across continental Europe, the tone is less confrontational than pragmatic. Kevin Mayne points to “green signs” as British associations gradually reappear in European umbrella structures – a reminder that influence begins with presence. At Schwalbe, Steffen Jüngst notes that the ongoing stabilisation of operational processes has created a basis from which simplification would be technically feasible. The sentiment: for many European executives, the priority is no longer ideological alignment but predictability: clearer procedures, fewer friction and steady regulatory frameworks.
That pragmatic instinct is increasingly mirrored in politics. The Labour government speaks of a “reset” in relations with Brussels, while firmly excluding a return to the single market or customs union. What remains is the middle ground: selective technical alignment, smoother border administration, and closer cooperation in areas such as sustainability regulation and research participation. For the EU, safeguarding the integrity of the single market remains non-negotiable; for the UK, economic realities encourage regulatory proximity without formal reintegration. The likely trajectory is therefore incremental rather than dramatic – quiet adjustments instead of constitutional upheaval. In Brussels and Berlin, the prevailing mood is transactional: reduce friction where mutual interest allows, without reopening settled battles.
An overview shows: ten years after the referendum, Brexit is no longer an existential rupture for Europe’s bicycle industry. It is a condition – absorbed into compliance departments, supply chains and pricing models. Trade continues, innovation continues, investment continues, albeit within narrower margins and looser political ties. The Channel remains only 20 miles wide. In
regulatory and strategic terms, however, it is still a distance that must be bridged deliberately, shipment by shipment and meeting by meeting.
Words: Werner Müller-Schell
Image credits: Wolfgang Claussen from Pixabay
Agree or disagree? CIN welcomes trade views on the topic. Send them in the direction of [email protected]
