AIBU to think that other than some people being upset or angry, there are no downsides for the UK if Brexit doesn't happen ?

[frumpety]

I can't think of any downsides to the UK not brexiting other than some of the population being upset for a bit. Can anyone else ?

@ADropofReality

So brilliantly and eloquently stated - thank you.

ADropofReality I haven't asked why people voted to leave, that's a question that has been asked many times before with variable results

My question is about what the downsides would be for the UK if we do not Brexit. I appreciate some people will be angry or upset, I am not here to belittle those feelings. I am merely asking for quantifiable, factual downsides if the course we are on changes.

So far we have got 1. Democracy, which very much depends on your interpretation of what UK democracy actually is, there seems to be a real facts versus feelings issue on this one. 2. Sovereignty, again interpretation of what the word actually means, is key. 3. Embarrassment, are we already ? and could we be more so ?

A drop of reality

Most sensible post yet. Thank you.

👏 👏 👏

They therefore have the right to see that implemented; not reversed before its implementation because the Great and Good disagree.

I do to a certain extent agree with this, however the Government have issued information that states that the UK will be worse off as a result of the WA and in serious trouble if the UK leaves with no deal, given the little time is has had to plan for such a scenario. Personally I have always been of the opinion that if something is worth doing, it is worth doing well. Neither the WA or No Deal fulfil this criteria.

@ADropofReality - voted Remain. I accept the result. I have the right to disagree.
I also have the right to lobby for WA as the least worst Leave option.
No Deal would be a humanitarian catastrophe and it is not contrary to democracy to fight it.

As far as embarrassment is concerned, or 'loss of face' (turning Japanese are we?): we definitely have lost lots already. I think 'face' or 'standing' in Europe and some other parts of the world is based on actual competence, Juncker notwithstanding. Britain is showing the world what its idea of standing is based on, and it isn't anything to do with actions or what anybody actually does. It's some sort of woolly imaginary world that is created out of lies and spin. Scratch the surface of royal and middle class mystique, all that 'face', and what you get is the reality of the UN report into poverty. Look up the concept of inverse totalitarianism, it looks very familiar.

To those saying ADropofReality made excellent points please respond to this point.

If the referendum was legally binding it would have been nullified due to electoral irregularities.

Because it is only advisory no one was prosecuted.

Should we continue to adhere to the result of an referendum that was fought illegally. If you believe we should act as if the result was legal and valid how does this fit into you views on democracy?

What was originally sold as purely a trading agreement has shifted massively over four decades and is progressing swiftly towards its openly-stated goal of becoming an all-out superstate.

In 1975 it was made very clear that the EEC (as it was) was more than just a trading bloc. Read the literature from 1975.

Its accounts have not been able to be audited for well over a decade and nobody even seems to really be concerned about this.

That is untrue.

The EU’s Court of Auditors has signed off on the accuracy and reliability of the accounts and that they present a true and fair view of the EU’s finances and follow the rules of financial reporting. This has been the case since 2007. The accounts are recorded as having errors, but that includes things such as funds awarded without complete bidding processes being followed.

If we had a General Election tomorrow and Labour won, we wouldn’t expect Theresa May to come out of Number 10 and say “You didn’t really mean it; I shall sit here in Number 10 for two years and then you’ll get a second chance to re-elect me; only then will I leave”.

No, because GEs are legally binding and to do this would be against our constitution and therefore illegal. However, if it was found that Labour had won having coerced people - either directly or indirectly - or had fraudulently infiltrated and harvested personal data and used that data to their advantage to skew the results, or had otherwise conducted themselves illegally, then Theresa May would have every right to expect the election to be re-run and for people to be prosecuted.

Oh, and at least we do get to vote governments in and out every four years - I.e. in a democracy we accept that things change over the course of time and a government that was right four years ago may no longer be right today. Leaving the EU is forever. And things have changed considerably in 2.5 years. Democracy is not static.

Cameron thought he was being clever by having an advisory referendum. Which was and is still Not Legally Binding.
But once A50 was triggered, the UK is set on the path to Leave. Which is Legally Binding. Without a parliamentary agreement on WA, we crash out with No Deal. Unless the grown ups step in and find a parliamentary way to stop No Deal. Which they are trying to do.
The EU is not in this one. We have the sovereign power to fuck things up all on our own.
The EU will only stop the clock for an election or another referendum. Why should it stop the clock without those.
There is no New Negotiation If Parliament doesn't accept WA. That is it.

But once A50 was triggered, the UK is set on the path to Leave. Which is Legally Binding.

Hasn't legal counsel said that A50 can be revoked? I know in reality it would entail more than it just being revoked (hence the talk of another referendum) but in theory it can be undone, therefore not legally binding in its truest sense.

if it was found that Labour had won having coerced people - either directly or indirectly - or had fraudulently infiltrated and harvested personal data and used that data to their advantage to skew the results, or had otherwise conducted themselves illegally, then Theresa May would have every right to expect the election to be re-run and for people to be prosecuted.

Exactly!

But somehow we find ourselves in a situation where a referendum which was won by cheating isn't considered invalid because it was only advisory - and yet it has been treated as if it were binding!

In 1974 we had two elections because the first was indecisive.

This thread and several others have revealed how sketchy people’s understanding of our unwritten constitution is and what the meaning of democracy is .

@LittleLionMansMummy Yes it can be revoked. But unless it is revoked we are legally bound by it. Unlike the referendum.

Only the end of democracy in this country, we might as well not have any more General elections, no need to vote anymore

Lets just ignore the majority of people that voted, if people that could vote, didn't vote that's their fault, they probably thought that leave was going to win anyway,

@Hesta54 , the difference between GE and advisory referenda has been explained on here many many many many many many many times.

Without wanting to be flippant, if you genuinely feel yourself to be the victim of an abusive, controlling, overbearing and much, much bigger partner, why is it seen as so ridiculous that you might be determined to want to leave if you possibly can find a way to do so?

It's seen as ridiculous when you have gained that impression by reason of the fact that you have provably been lied to by people who are solely motivated by self-interest, and have ignored facts that are freely available.

@Hesta54 if the referendum had been a GE and was legally binding it would have been nullified due to electoral irregularities.

Because it was only advisory no prosecutions took place.

Do you want to uphold the decision of an illegal referendum? How does that fit in with your view of 'democracy'?

Funny how the "EU is like an abusive partner" scenario falls over when you see how the EU is standing up for Ireland.
The EU could have sold Ireland down the river but it didn't. Which is why we have the backstop. The EU isn't insisting on a backstop just to piss us off but to protect one of its remaining members.

bellinisurge we just go round and round in circles, yes advisory, so the government could have done what they liked, But we all remember the PM ( at the time ) of this country, on live television telling the general public that the government will implement the result of the referendum, how do we have any trust in government officials going forward, the last of the remaining trust is gone, we might as well never vote for anything again,

bellinisurge I really don’t get this love in with the E.U., they are only using Ireland for its own aims, they are like a big business just trying to get the best for themselves

Mousse don’t forget that the Electoral Commission has referred Banks et al to the NCA:

While electoral law offences would not routinely fall within the NCA’s remit, the nature of the necessary inquiries and the potential for offences to have been committed other than under electoral law lead us to consider an NCA investigation appropriate in this instance.

www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/1498-nca-initiates-investigation-following-electoral-commission-referral

The U.K. is casting itself as a victim. Brexit supporters are shamelessly pretending to be victims in the face of bullying by Ireland.

The irony and sheer thoughtless, ignorance is beyond belief. 800 years of oppression by the (mainly) English and now they are the bully because Britain can't get its own way.

@Hesta54 so any comment about the fact that the referendum would have been illegal if it was legally binding. Or are you ignoring that point because you have no response?

Moussemoose how can it be illegal when no criminal act has taken place? Both sides were found quilts by the EC and the leave party was given wrong advise