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.

troyzer · 11-12-2018 11:52am

FTA69 wrote: »

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.

What was it Edward Carson said? That his greatest fear wasn't southern nationalists but English tories?

He admitted as much in a parliamentary speech in his later years that he realised that the English couldn't care less about the North and the Tories just used Unionists as a pawn to gain power. Much like Asquith did with the IPP.

Mrsmum · 11-12-2018 11:54am

troyzer wrote: »

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!!!

Thank you again. You've more or less confirmed what I thought was the case but I thought maybe I was missing something.

FTA69 · 11-12-2018 12:00pm

The British establishment may have strategic interests in Ireland but that doesn’t mean bar one or two chauvinistic Tories, they actually have any affinities with the Unionists as a people. And they’ve also demonstrated that they’ll overrule Unionists when it suits them. Obviously the Unionists aren’t thick and they know this well. The union allowed them to maintain their position as the primary people in Ulster but they’ve no real affinity or trust in the Brits at the end of the day.

Regardless of any long term interests the British might have in Ireland, they’re very much secondary now as the UK itself is now in a major political crisis that could even pose an existential threat to its continuation as a unitary state, never mind a power of influence.

orourkeda1977 · 11-12-2018 12:05pm

prinzeugen wrote: »

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

Wasnt that a crackstop?

orourkeda1977 · 11-12-2018 12:09pm

troyzer wrote: »

What was it Edward Carson said? That his greatest fear wasn't southern nationalists but English tories?

He admitted as much in a parliamentary speech in his later years that he realised that the English couldn't care less about the North and the Tories just used Unionists as a pawn to gain power. Much like Asquith did with the IPP.

a) Why have they held on to it for so long?

and

b) Why wouldnt they dump it on us if they care so little? Thats not necessarily a call for a united Ireland but appears to be a financial practicality

Northern Ireland is a financial and political black hole and appears to be of little practical or economic benefit.

troyzer · 11-12-2018 12:12pm

orourkeda1977 wrote: »

a) Why have they held on to it for so long?

and

b) Why wouldnt they dump it on us if they care so little?

Northern Ireland is a financial and political black hole and appears to be of little practical or economic benefit.

Because when they originally tried to push home rule the Unionists signed the covenant and threatened civil war and violence against the crown. They were heavily armed so had the means to do so.

They can't realistically dump it because from a Tory perspective, it would be a prestige blow. Privately they want rid of it but publicly they have to support it as an integral part of the union. They can't be seen to be surrendering the Queen's land to potato eating savages like us, especially without a mandate.

Which is the bigger issue from a Labour perspective, you can't get rid of the North unless there's consent. I think everyone agrees with that, even Nationalists. What a lot of Nationalists don't seem to accept is that you can't grown your way to 51% and call it a day. A united Ireland will only be successful and acceptable if there's significant unionist buy in.

orourkeda1977 · 11-12-2018 12:18pm

troyzer wrote: »

Because when they originally tried to push home rule the Unionists signed the covenant and threatened civil war and violence against the crown. They were heavily armed so had the means to do so.

They can't realistically dump it because from a Tory perspective, it would be a prestige blow. Privately they want rid of it but publicly they have to support it as an integral part of the union. They can't be seen to be surrendering the Queen's land to potato eating savages like us, especially without a mandate.

Which is the bigger issue from a Labour perspective, you can't get rid of the North unless there's consent. I think everyone agrees with that, even Nationalists. What a lot of Nationalists don't seem to accept is that you can't grown your way to 51% and call it a day. A united Ireland will only be successful and acceptable if there's significant unionist buy in.

This speaks volumes to the British mindset and was a significant factor in brexit. There doesn't appear to be much consideration given to practical matters.

Sometimes their arrogance is frightening.

valoren · 11-12-2018 12:18pm

It's a term used in Golf as well.

Say you have two players who have played their shots into the green. One player is close to the hole. One has come up short of the green. As this player is the furthest away from the hole then they play their next shot first. The player whose ball is on the green is under no obligation whatsoever to mark their ball. Most players do but in some cases they might not. So for the player hitting from off the green there is an outside chance that their ball might ricochet off the other ball which could stop it from going off say the back of the green or going further from the hole than planned. They can thus potentially be more aggressive and aim at the ball itself in the hope they might collide or have a poor shot get lucky. The odd's of it happening for amateurs is negligible but for the very best players it can provide a definite advantage.

The player whose ball was close to the hole in such an instance simply replaces their ball to where it was before getting hit whereas the other player benefits from backstopping. As said most players just mark their ball with a coin but there is sometimes known tactics used by players friendly with each other when paired together to not mark their ball to the benefit of the other. They are not breaking any rules as such.

As regards the North, the term may be similar as in we are still in the EU and share land mass with NI. By analogy, our ball is close to the hole (we will still be in the EU) after March 2019. NI as part of the UK is heading for brexit (a bunker at the back of the green) and NI may look to capitalise on our established position and the shared land mass to the benefit of NI businesses etc? Think of NI as the errant golf ball struck by an incompetent golfer (the UK government) heading towards a deep bunker off the back of the green but then clipping ROI's unmarked ball and instead coming to a stop at the back edge and not deep in that bunker.

dr.fuzzenstein · 11-12-2018 12:57pm

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

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.

How does this undermine the democratic decision of the UK?
The UK voted on Brexit and the decision was followed up on.
Plans for Brexit were drawn up and negotiated with the EU and would have been put to a vote in parliament, except that was postponed due to poor recepton of the deal.
The EU has been very clear that the deal is the deal is the deal.
So now the UK faces three possible outcomes.
Take the deal, take no deal or remain. The EU is not forcing any of those options on anyone.
Which option is being taken is entirely up to the utter muppets that make up the UK government.
It would be unfair to lay blame for this utter dumsterfire on the EU.

jmayo · 11-12-2018 1:49pm

_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.

And worse still some spanners keep comparing us to Germany, the biggest most powerful economy in fooking Europe.
And as someone alluded to the other day on radio, 17 million of those East Germans didn't see themselves as Russians unlike half the population in the North that see themselves as British.

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.

Actually IMHO some die hard unionists do want to be very separate from the Republic and a hard border is what they would like.
Northern Ireland has got too assimilated with the Republic, especially over the last 20 odd years, for some people.

Reece Mogg has fook all chance of ever being leader, Johnson maybe.
He couldn't even scare up enough votes to get May out.
He mighjt be used as the one to set things in motion though.

Mint Sauce wrote: »

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.

Cameron hoped the vote would once and for all put the issue to bed and then squeeze out the Brexiteers both in his own party and UKIP.
Hell even the Brexiteers can't agree on what they want.
There have been total fantasists who believe they can have all the advantages of the single market without any of the commitments.

A lot of them are still living in the past when UK was a force to be reckoned with both economically and diplomatically, but they should have just looked around and see how tied their economic well being is to an open Europe.
And then you hear the comments about great Britain was before they joined EEC.
FFS have any of them any concept of history ?

troyzer wrote: »

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!!!

Ulster did say NO.
Some of the DUP keep claiming the farmers union are all for Brexit.
Talk about shooting yourself in both feet.

Mint Sauce · 11-12-2018 2:29pm

FTA69 wrote: »

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.

I am sure the One Billion Pound bribe helps them sleep easier.

realdanbreen · 11-12-2018 2:41pm

It's incredible to think that this shower of incompetents once commanded an Empire!
Easily know they only did it through tyranny and plundering.

theguzman · 11-12-2018 2:45pm

Mint Sauce wrote: »

I am sure the One Billion Pound bribe helps them sleep easier.

For holding such a sway over the UK Government they really shortchanged themselves for £1bn they should have asked for £5bn at least. The Healy Raes in Kerry got something like €70-€100m off Bertie Ahern in Road Projects for Kerry for a single TD (MP).

end of the road · 11-12-2018 2:59pm

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

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.

How is the EU changing the rules on the fly? the rules are the rules and the rule is that the uk can cancel article 50. it takes a little bit of time to change rules, especially where 27 member states have to vote, and then i'd imagine there will be time for the courts to familiarise themselves with the rules, and yet we are supposed to believe the EU are changing them on the fly?

Taxburden carrier · 11-12-2018 3:02pm

bobbyss wrote: »

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

To paraphrase Teresa May
“Backstop means backstop”

jmayo · 11-12-2018 3:21pm

realdanbreen wrote: »

It's incredible to think that this shower of incompetents once commanded an Empire!
Easily know they only did it through tyranny and plundering.

Actually sometimes they were just plain lucky.
When you look through some of Britain's military history it is littered with cockups in no small part due to incompetent leadership from their aristocratic officers.

The madness of World War 1 being the pinnacle of that stupidity.

troyzer · 11-12-2018 3:23pm

jmayo wrote: »

Actually sometimes they were just plain lucky.
When you look through some of Britain's military history it is littered with cockups in no small part due to incompetent leadership from their aristocratic officers.

The madness of World War 1 being the pinnacle of that stupidity.

On that subject, I can't honestly think of a single war since the early modern period which Britain either won on its own or as the largest member of a coalition.

Not one.

spaceHopper · 11-12-2018 3:32pm

It's funny how May heads the Holland and Germany but doesn't come here or is it a case of we'll do as we are told by zi Germans

Raheem Euro · 11-12-2018 3:33pm

Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

troyzer · 11-12-2018 3:34pm

spaceHopper wrote: »

It's funny how May heads the Holland and Germany but doesn't come here or is it a case of we'll do as we are told by zi Germans

Although the Brits have largely given up on this idea that the German carmakers will make sure Britain gets a favourable deal, they still think that Merkel dictates European policy.

They talked about it recently on the Irish Times podcast. Their unfounded belief that the EU is a German pawn was one of the main reasons they left and also one of the main reasons they thought a deal would be easy.

Backstop

Comments