Backstop

bobbyss · 10-12-2018 11:59pm #1

Making an entrance with Brexit this is an awful sounding word. What does it mean? Who used it first?

11-12-2018 12:10am

Essentially an insurance policy, to prevent a hard border between north and south.

dxhound2005 · 11-12-2018 12:14am

A word/phrase which came into the language originally in sport. As with plenty more such as own goal, it is a useful shorthand.

prinzeugen · 11-12-2018 12:14am

First used in an episode of "One Foot In The Grave" when Patrick (Victor Meldrews neighbour) got a wine cork stuck up his arse.

pleas advice · 11-12-2018 12:15am

its like that yoke that stops the door from slamming against the wall when its thrown open

11-12-2018 5:49am

It's like being on Tinder and the wife is the backstop.

Raheem Euro · 11-12-2018 5:57am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's like being on Tinder and the wife is the backstop.

Is she a Hard Border or can it all be done with cameras?

Annasopra · 11-12-2018 8:53am

Just replace backstop and tracker mortgage

troyzer · 11-12-2018 8:54am

The backstop is the barrier behind homeplate in baseball which stops a wild pitch smacking a spectator in the face.

Peregrinus · 11-12-2018 9:06am

bobbyss wrote: »

Making an entrance with Brexit this is an awful sounding word. What does it mean? Who used it first?

It's a term used in baseball, rounders and (originally, until it got replaced by "long-stop") cricket. It means the guy who stands some way behind the wicketkeeper (or equivalent in other sports) whose job is to catch the ball if the wicketkeeper failes to catch it. Dates from the early nineteenth century. In baseball, as well as referring to a player whose job is to catch the ball if others miss it, it also refers to a fence erected for the same purpose.

By the mid-nineteenth century it had been extended into other, analogous uses. For example on an archery ground or rifle range, the "backstop" is the bank of earth erected behing the targets, into which arrows or bullets which miss the targets will plough harmlessly.

So, basically, it means the arrnangement you make that is to apply as a last resort, if all other arrangements fail.

In the Brexit context, the EU and the UK have agreed that the border in Ireland is to be kept open by a "deep and special" trading agreement between them which will be so deep and so special that it will make border controls of any kind unnecessary. But if there is no such agreement then the border is to be kept open by agreed technological solution which will make border controls of any kind unnecessary. But if there is no such technology then the border will be kept open by the UK committing to maintain regulatory alignment between NI and the EU. And that last one is the backstop, because that's what is to happen if all other alternatives fail.

_Kaiser_ · 11-12-2018 9:12am

The most annoying thing about this whole Brexit stuff is hearing SF beat that United Ireland drum.

It's a lovely idea with the rose-tinted romanticised glasses on, but in reality the cost of taking on NI, how we'd manage even more civil/public service workers, the security issues (the unionists aren't likely to just shrug and accept it), and the question of what it would actually achieve given the mess repeated governments have made of the country we have now make it a BIT more complicated than "yea sure, be great".

The only way to realistically manage the current impass I think is to put the borders at the UK-NI/ROI points and leave the island as a common zone, but the Unionists don't want that either.

Yer Da sells Avon · 11-12-2018 9:20am

Finally, someone has asked the question that I, a politics & international relations graduate, have been too embarrassed to ask.

zapitastas · 11-12-2018 9:23am

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

The most annoying thing about this whole Brexit stuff is hearing SF beat that United Ireland drum.

It's a lovely idea with the rose-tinted romanticised glasses on, but in reality the cost of taking on NI, how we'd manage even more civil/public service workers, the security issues (the unionists aren't likely to just shrug and accept it), and the question of what it would actually achieve given the mess repeated governments have made of the country we have now make it a BIT more complicated than "yea sure, be great".

The only way to realistically manage the current impass I think is to put the borders at the UK-NI/ROI points and leave the island as a common zone, but the Unionists don't want that either.

That's the most annying thing about brexit? Not the fact that the British government has taken a decision that could devestate a large section of this country, without any thought of the people that will be affected

JohnnyFlash · 11-12-2018 9:23am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Just replace backstop and tracker mortgage

There’s no excuse for ignorance. This is s hugely important development in the short history of this State.

Here we go · 11-12-2018 9:26am

What I don't get about the back stop is. It's there to prevent a hard border and that's great but it's so important to have it we'd rather have a no deal which will ensure a hard border

_Kaiser_ · 11-12-2018 9:29am

zapitastas wrote: »

That's the most annying thing about brexit? Not the fact that the British government has taken a decision that could devestate a large section of this country, without any thought of the people that will be affected

Ah Brexit isn't going to be accepted. In the last few days the ECJ came out and said that the UK can cancel article 50 if desired. Once again, the EU rewriting the supposed rules on the fly to undermine the democratic decision of the UK electorate - something that's been ongoing since the result was announced.

It's not in the EU's interest for Brexit to go through and worse, NOT be the apocalypse it's been positioned as because it would likely lead to other states wanting out as well.

I think May will be ousted as she can't get the deal through anyway, an election called and then they'll have a "do-over". I wouldn't be worried about supposed deadlines because as we've seen, these can and will be extended as needed.

Lord Glentoran · 11-12-2018 9:32am

Glad people asked about the Backstop.

It’s being put in to prevent us on the border being bum sexed by the border.

Thanks for asking.

troyzer · 11-12-2018 9:33am

Here we go wrote: »

What I don't get about the back stop is. It's there to prevent a hard border and that's great but it's so important to have it we'd rather have a no deal which will ensure a hard border

I think the assumption is that no deal just isn't going to happen. The British will blink.

No deal would just be absolutely catastrophic for the UK and that's outside the fact that the UK has a legally binding commitment to the Good Friday agreement. If they violate an international treaty whilst nursing a ruined economy, nobody is going to rush to have trade deals with them. Certainly not on terms favourable to Britain.

The best they could hope for would be a servile agreement with the US.

Peregrinus · 11-12-2018 9:34am

Here we go wrote: »

What I don't get about the back stop is. It's there to prevent a hard border and that's great but it's so important to have it we'd rather have a no deal which will ensure a hard border

No deal ensures a hard border in the short term, but it still leaves the UK in dire need of a deal. So there is still leverage which can be used to get the UK to enter into arrangements that will open the border again, and keep it open.

Whereas if the UK gets a Brexit deal with no backstop, that results in a hard border - not immediately, but soon - and it's permanent, since the UK has the deal it needs, and isn't under the same pressure.

Either of these outcomes is bad for us but, of the two, a withdrawal agreement without an effective backstop is worse than a no-deal Brexit, because it leads to a permanently hard border.

realdanbreen · 11-12-2018 9:41am

Deleted User wrote: »

Essentially an insurance policy, to prevent a hard border between north and south.

But I thought the unionists didn't want a hard border anyway?
Seems to me that their main objection, and the objection that the reece-mogg type knobs have is that a backstop would mean that the 6 counties could be classed differently than the rest of the Kingdom which is a bit of a childish objection.

11-12-2018 9:44am

I’m so glad someone asked the question in here as I still couldn’t get my head around what a backstop was.

This is our “backstop for dummies” book.

Badly Drunk Boy · 11-12-2018 9:47am

zapitastas wrote: »

That's the most annying thing about brexit? Not the fact that the British government has taken a decision that could devestate a large section of this country, without any thought of the people that will be affected

Or even any thought of how their own people will be affected, although it's obvious that a lot of them weren't thinking about that when they voted to leave.

Lord Glentoran · 11-12-2018 9:47am

realdanbreen wrote: »

But I thought the unionists didn't want a hard border anyway?
Seems to me that their main objection, and the objection that the reece-mogg type knobs have is that a backstop would mean that the 6 counties could be classed differently than the rest of the Kingdom which is a bit of a childish objection.

Doesn’t stop them accepting different treatment for Northern Ireland with abortion, equal marriage or the more mundane public transport policy.

In any case, yesterday was a case of ‘Hey, hey, Theresa May, shat her pants and ran away’. Singapore-style UK receding a bit, unless they decide to have a report chewing gum button on public telephones...

facehugger99 · 11-12-2018 10:09am

Deleted User wrote: »

It's like being on Tinder and the wife is the backstop.

Northern Ireland becomes the EU's booty call.

Mint Sauce · 11-12-2018 10:47am

Badly Drunk Boy wrote: »

Or even any thought of how their own people will be affected, although it's obvious that a lot of them weren't thinking about that when they voted to leave.

Am not sure a single thought was even given to NI, let alone the NI/RoI Border. You only had to see Farrage, Johnsons, et al, reaction to the leave vote winning. Both had campaigned for a leave vote, but then ran when it won. It was poor stratagy played by Cameroon, for his Conserative Government, that spectaculary backfired. There was no plan for this at all.

Whilst alot of people who hoped for remain, now hopes May steps down, her replacement might also want to continue with pushing for a leave, especially if that replacement is Mogg, or Johnson.

Its a pretty ****e situation.

Mrsmum · 11-12-2018 11:01am

The DUP - would anyone care to explain their position to me, what power they have or haven't, their fears, their best case scenario, worst case.

troyzer · 11-12-2018 11:18am

Mrsmum wrote: »

The DUP - would anyone care to explain their position to me, what power they have or haven't, their fears, their best case scenario, worst case.

They want the withdrawal agreement and the future relationship to make no distinction between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. It's that simple.

They think it's ridiculous that the North should get its own mention and conditions as much as it would be for Norfolk to get them.

This is unrealistic because of the special constitutional status granted by the GFA but they don't care.

They said they don't want a hard border and I believe them, mostly because they know the security risks. But they're not willing to avoid it if it means marking the North as special so any deal to avoid a border in Ireland would also have to equally apply to Calais.

11-12-2018 11:30am

The DUP are really cutting off their nose to spite their face. Out of all the countries in Europe, wouldn’t Northern Ireland have had the best outcome of any of them?

Mrsmum · 11-12-2018 11:32am

troyzer wrote: »

They want the withdrawal agreement and the future relationship to make no distinction between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. It's that simple.

They think it's ridiculous that the North should get its own mention and conditions as much as it would be for Norfolk to get them.

This is unrealistic because of the special constitutional status granted by the GFA but they don't care.

They said they don't want a hard border and I believe them, mostly because they know the security risks. But they're not willing to avoid it if it means marking the North as special so any deal to avoid a border in Ireland would also have to equally apply to Calais.

Thank you. Ok so they want to be the same as Norfolk at all costs but they are already different to Norfolk in terms of stuff like abortion, devolved government and cross border tourism initiatives etc. They are very different. Why would they not accept still being British but just having different terms on this ? Is that not in their own best interests at this stage ? Is that not the safest long term scenario for them ?

troyzer · 11-12-2018 11:44am

Mrsmum wrote: »

Thank you. Ok so they want to be the same as Norfolk at all costs but they are already different to Norfolk in terms of stuff like abortion, devolved government and cross border tourism initiatives etc. They are very different. Why would they not accept still being British but just having different terms on this ? Is that not in their own best interests at this stage ? Is that not the safest long term scenario for them ?

They want to have their cake and eat it. Which is why themselves and the Brexiteers are a match made in heaven and why the DUP are so infuriatingly difficult to work with both in Stormont and now as May has found out, in Westminster. They simply don't compromise on their unrealistic demands.

They don't accept the premise that their Britishness comes with an asterix. That's the issue here. Of course it's in their best interests and in the interests of many of their voters which includes a lot of farmers but they simply don't care.

ULSTER SAYS NO!!!

FTA69 · 11-12-2018 11:45am

realdanbreen wrote: »

But I thought the unionists didn't want a hard border anyway?
Seems to me that their main objection, and the objection that the reece-mogg type knobs have is that a backstop would mean that the 6 counties could be classed differently than the rest of the Kingdom which is a bit of a childish objection.

As others have said they want to have their cake and eat it. The type of Unionism espoused by the DUP is fundamentally reactionary anyway, they wanted to vote out for xenophobic and chauvinistic reasons but also want all the benefits of having no border.

They are now crying and shouting because the idea that the Six Counties are some seamless part of the UK is exposed as fiction and that the British establishment is willing to sell them down the river in that regard because their first concern is the people of Britain who voted leave, not Irish unionists.

They also know this is a very vulnerable time for the UK as a project with Scotland wavering and rising English nationalism; and that if it does wallop they’ll be pushed into unity by default. They’ll jump up and down moaning about being treated differently, and I’m betting they’re regretting ever supporting Leave.

Backstop

Comments