The backstop is not an issue of 'whats been said' but 'whats been written'.
Lets say: Hard Brexit.
EU is forced to separate on their terms, creating a hard border in ireland, while being coined "the bad guy" in public in Ireland for doing so. Ireland would also be significantly economically impaired (see routes), so people in irland would be mad at the EU.
With backstop: UK is violating international law.
Without backstop: Less clear responsibilities.
So what actually saying "we want the backstop clause out" is - is playing a game of 'chicken', which would significantly increase both the outcome benefits and the likelyhood of a hard brexit for the UK.
So it is like taking the EU safety clause for a hard brexit (making it extremely unlikely that the UK will trigger one) out of the preliminary agreement.
Its literally the following. In final negotiations. One party holds kind of the golden ticket for 'whom the public in ireland will blame (the other side)', if the negotiations fail - and there is going to be a hard border.
The party thats holding the ticket (currently the EU) is in a slightly better negotiation position for a soft brexit (because they can always say - you dont want the hard brexit, do you?).
And this "ticket" doesnt go away, if the EU drops it. It just changes over to the other side.
So its actually a real political issue.
I understand the point you're making, it could and would be an issue but for the fact both parties have said numerous times they wont, under any circumstances enforce a hard border. If nobody is willing to enforce the harder border, It's a non issue.