Backstop

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.

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.

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.

_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.

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

_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?

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.

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

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.

troyzer wrote: »

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.

They are probably right, during the "banking crisis" it was all Anagle and Sarkozi getting together having a chat and telling the plebs what to do.

troyzer wrote: »

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.

The people who say that the EU is a German pawn... what are their reasons for saying so ?

I think there will be another referendum and they will end up staying. Which will be an even better result than if the original referendum had went the other way, 52% Remain.

The Brexiteers would have been back looking for more referendums until they got the result they wanted. If there is a new referendum resulting in Remain, that settles the issue for good. There is no way they could look for more referendums to leave after this shambles.

Of course they never accepted the result of the referendum in 1975 and they finally got their way in 2016. They can't complain that another referendum would be undemocratic, when they would not have accepted a small majority for Remain.

troyzer wrote: »

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.

The Falklands?

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

All the things the "true" Brexiteers (DUP, right of Conservative party) now want (all of UK incl. NI to exit single market, exit customs union, main EU institutions if not next March, then at some arbitrary point in future when they decide they are ready for it) are not compatible with having the current open border with NI in the long term.

What we want and what they want are thus mutually exclusive.

So getting this "backstop" in agreement is an attempt to try and get "our" way + keep the status quo at NI border at the risk of ending up in a worse situation if the UK do actually go through with their mad kamikaze Brexit.

Probably the risk here was judged to be much lower when we though UK politics was sane but its looking like they may actually go through with their self immolation now.

It is bad for Ireland either way really. Would hate to see our govt. bow down now though and give into these nutters and horrible bstards in British politics driving Brexit forward.