MikeUpNorth
Wobbles like a massive pair of tits
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 20,041
What you seem to be saying then, is that the backstop does not actually fulfil its intention of preventing the need for a hard border (at least in a certain set of conceivable circumstances regarding trade)?I can't compare because I haven't looked at the EU-Turkish custom agreement. In this agreement the UK have the right to unilaterally take any measure that protects its market. You already said that it would defy logic and I should have been totally clear, you can and will have to put borders if you want to protect yourself. And that's why the EUCU trade in block, that's why Norway and Switzerland have borders and border checks.
You have to make a choice, you either trade in block and have the same legal framework or you will need a border, otherwise we are vulnerable to exploitation.
I believe that the UK would be in violation of the provisions of the WA if it ended up in the backstop and subsequently implemented border checks. It surely would have a legal obligation to abide by the terms of the customs union? That's the whole point.