This, by @MPIainDS, is simply ridiculous, for a number of reasons. ft.com/content/8c0a3b…
The first sentence here: yes - but Article 13(1) has a “notwithstanding” provision - IDS should appreciate the effect of that because “notwithstanding” is in clause 45 of the Internal Market Bill. 
So the rule that NI is subject to the Union Customs Code (Reg 952/2013) trumps the “UK customs territory provision. The magic of “notwithstanding”.
The second and third sentence: yes, “at risk” is to be defined: but defined by the Joint Committee (EU + UK). Not the EU.
The EU is also dualist in relation to international law. So what? The EU isn’t criticising the U.K. for being dualist: it’s criticising the UK for avowedly and admittedly breaching its international obligations, in an agreement for which @MPIainDS voted with enthusiasm.
The obligation to collect EU tariffs on GB-NI goods movements (outside the exceptional “not at risk” and “commercial processing” categories) is expressly conferred by Article 5 of the Protocol.
The UK Parliament has always had the power in UK law to refuse to honour the UK’s international obligations. S.38 of the Withdrawal Act just repeats that position. But that does not mean that the EU accepted that the UK could renege on its obligations just because Parlt said so.
The British people (OK, only a minority of them but, hey, that’s our system) voted for an “oven ready” withdrawal agreement, for which @MPIainDS voted enthusiastically and urged voters to endorse.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
