Implications of not invoking Article 50

[CuppaTeaAndAJammieDodger]

So there is plenty of talk about whether or not Article 50 will actually be triggered.

Let's say that it's not, what do you think the implications will be? Will the whole sorry mess just get swept under the carpet? Will we be forevermore looked upon as the laughing stock of the EU? Will it's initiate a conversation and possibly action to shake up British politics for the better or worse?

Would like to hear anyone's thoughts.

Completely agree with *ManonLescaut"
I'd so much rather look foolish now than face 10-20 years of economic uncertainty and decline.
In 10 years we will be facing a Chilcott-like enquiry at how this debacle ever happened. Universal fuckwittage is the answer

I think that leaving is just not an option at all. No matter how the Leave voters twist it, majority of them have made a massive error of judgment. It was an advisory referendum and for good reasons. It's not like a general election where you can make a mistake and then change vote five years later. This is final and over if we invoke article 50. I for once want to have massive debates started in the Leave majority areas to actually try and do the work of the Remain now even though it's late. It's not too late if we look at what is going to happen if we invoke article 50.

majority of them have made a massive error of judgment

In your opinion.

I voted remain bit I am getting a little tiered of this sneering towards Leave voters.

Agree Piglet, I was just talking to my neighbour who confessed to me that she voted Remain but was getting so annoyed she would vote Leave if they re-run the referendum.

Valentine2 I also voted Remain. I am also concerned about the uncertainty and the economic effects of all this. I deciding our fellow citizens are idiots and ignoring the democratic process is just not a tenable idea.

getting so annoyed she would vote Leave if they re-run the referendum.

I do not understand this sentiment. If, as many on MN have agreed, people voted after careful consideration of the issues and (whichever way they voted) in the belief that theirs was the choice for the ultimately greater good - why on earth would somebody vote differently for such a reason? Surely you are not suggesting that anybody voted for such trivial and superficial reasons, that they would change their vote in a fit of pique?

I assume she wasn't a firm Remainer. Perhaps her heart was Leave and her head was Remain? When the Leavers are insulted in some way she is insulted too because she partly identifies?

getting so annoyed she would vote Leave if they re-run the referendum.

Because the vote was leave. Many Remainers believe that the vote should stand and no second referendum. If there is a second referendum they would vote leave as that is what the majority wanted originally and they believe it should stand.

I have also like pp heard people say they would do the same.

It will go through. I think it's more likely that they will drag it out as long as possible which will actually be the worst thing.

What's done is done. We need fantastic negotiations dealing with this right now to protect millions of people. But instead both sides have decided to self imploaded which is absolutly madness! I think this shows the true priority of our governments.

TM reluctance to agree to immigrants that are already here are allowed to stay settled is

How easy it was for our government to crumble.

DC should have grew some balls and sorted this shit out as after all he put this on the table.

If we go EEA which the main parties want we will still get free trade/freedom of movement, still have to follow EU rules to some extent but the 'taking back our democracy' (forgetting about house of lords/prime minister/top civil servants ) crowd can cheer.

This for me will cause a second massive protest vote to UKIP who i think anarchically would just put silly demands to EU which would get rejected and we would unceremoniously be pushed out.

Ian Hislop on point as always on QT last night -

www.snappytv.com/tc/2319929/1176097

Can someone explain to me when other countries had referendums on treaties (Ireland and the Lisbon treaty come to mind) which I presume were more legally binding than ours, just got to have another go, whereas with Brexit, where the referendum result was only ever going to be advisory, it's being taken as cast in stone?

The main reason seems to be it would be undemocratic and we are just sore losers, as far as I can see.

The main reason seems to be it would be undemocratic and we are just sore losers, as far as I can see.

That's a fatuous answer to what is actually a good question.

As I understand it, in Ireland, a Supreme Court decision in 1987 meant that ratification of any significant amendment to EU Treaties had to be done through an amendment to the Irish Constitution of Ireland. Any such amendments require approval by referendum. So a referendum was held and the majority rejected the amendment.

The Irish Government then renegotiated the terms of the Treaty, and the 2nd referendum was on the reworded amendment to the Constitution.

So really they were two separate referendums on different wordings.

Perhaps other Mumsnetters in Ireland can correct my interpretation / give more details.

I think Ians comments were beneath him actually.

We always knew C would have to resign, if a PM resigns then a process has to follow which is - exactly what is happening. So why is this a surprise?
The constant clutching onto the 350 million is also getting tired, its the only criticism anyone seems to be able to draw on.

I have not heard one remainer say in the media " we should have pushed the positives of the EU more we should have done more"

Can someone explain to me when other countries had referendums on treaties (Ireland and the Lisbon treaty come to mind) which I presume were more legally binding than ours, just got to have another go, whereas with Brexit, where the referendum result was only ever going to be advisory, it's being taken as cast in stone?

I assume it's because they got the "wrong answer" the first time and strings were pulled behind the scenes to ensure Europe "listened" and the public were "educated" into giving the "right answer". I can't see any examples of it happening the other way round, i.e. a second referendum when the "right answer" in the EU's eyes won the first time! I hope Britain has enough decency and resistance that we can avoid the same false democracy happening to us.

The constant clutching onto the 350 million is also getting tired, its the only criticism anyone seems to be able to draw on.

Yes, I agree. If it had been £100 million it wouldn't have changed my mind in the slightest, because the economic side wasn't my main reason for wanting to leave the EU.

There is no reason, VeryPunny. Remainers are being painted as elitist 'sore losers' who just want to 'throw their toys out of the pram' rather than as people with real and valid concerns about the detrimental effects of Brexit on the country as a whole, including the very people that we're now being told we despise. The prevailing rhetoric is that we need to suck up what is being painted as primarily a 'protest vote', or risk being accused of being 'elitists' who are seeking to dictate terms to people who have been victims of an uncaring government. We are not allowed to point out that they are 'protesting' by replacing one set of Tories with an arguably worse set of Tories because that is tantamount to calling them 'stupid' apparently. We are not allowed to point out that they have probably done themselves no favours in terms of their local economies, because, again, that is suggesting that they don't know what's good for them. We are expected to conveniently ignore the fact that huge swathes of comfortably-off Home counties people also voted Leave.

But apparently it's fine that remainers should just STFU and have their voices stifled. It's fine for remainers to be stereotyped as 'sore losers' and to be subject to comments like 'would you demand a rematch because your football team didn't win?' as if this issue is of equal importance to something so fundamentally trivial.

I have not heard one remainer say in the media "we should have pushed the positives of the EU more we should have done more"

As a remainer, I'm very happy to say that. The remain campaign was abysmal, particularly as all the polls were predicting a very close result, albeit in the other direction.

I see A4 document has proved my point admirably.

It is not 'false democracy' to protest, argue or look for alternative solutions when you believe your country has massively shot itself in the collective foot.

Yes, I agree. If it had been £100 million it wouldn't have changed my mind in the slightest, because the economic side wasn't my main reason for wanting to leave the EU.

This is a good point. A lot of my uncle's in law voted Leave. They understood this point very well. It wasn't pivotal for them. Also, for a lot of people 350M vs. 100M won't make a difference. They both sound like big numbers.

There is no reason, VeryPunny. Remainers are being painted as elitist 'sore losers' who just want to 'throw their toys out of the pram' rather than as people with real and valid concerns about the detrimental effects of Brexit on the country as a whole, including the very people that we're now being told we despise. The prevailing rhetoric is that we need to suck up what is being painted as primarily a 'protest vote', or risk being accused of being 'elitists' who are seeking to dictate terms to people who have been victims of an uncaring government.

Leave voters are not 'victims'. The way it is coming accross is that Remainers care and leavers are selfish. Which a) isn't true and b) is sneery and 'we know what's good for you.

We are not allowed to point out that they are 'protesting' by replacing one set of Tories with an arguably worse set of Tories because that is tantamount to calling them 'stupid' apparently.

That is what you are doing. It has been comnented tomd upon time about the intelligence and education of people who voted leave. Not all leavers voted as 'protest' either. On fact many didn't.

We are not allowed to point out that they have probably done themselves no favours in terms of their local economies, because, again, that is suggesting that they don't know what's good for them.

Well that is what you are doing by saying that. It is coming across as 'we know what's good for you'

We are expected to conveniently ignore the fact that huge swathes of comfortably-off Home counties people also voted Leave.

Who said it is to be ignored?

Are you also going to point to out that people may have also voted remain for personal selfish reasons?

The language on both sides used throughout the campaign was horrendous.

It doesn't seem to be any better now.

I have not heard one remainer say in the media "we should have pushed the positives of the EU more we should have done more"

This is a good point and it should have been done.