So, can we agree to disagree on whether the Thermidorians were reactionaries or not and discuss the implications of a France which continued to be ruled by Robespierre and co?
The results would be catastrophic. The Terreur was, even if supported by most members of the National Convention, horrific. Maybe some elements of the Terreur were necessary to win the war - but most victims were innocent. The guillotine bled France dry of some of its greatest thinkers. Not only Danton, Camilles Desmoulins and the Girondins; not only atheists like Hébert; also Condorcet, mathematician, republican, democrat and, last but not least, feminist; Lavoisier, chemist; Fabre d'Églantine, important poet; Olympe de Gouges, women's right activist. And not to forget Thomas Paine, who was already in prison and saved only by chance.
Who would want to contine this horror? After the Battle of Fleurus on 26 June, many (correctly) assumed that France would win the war. But Robespierre and the Montagnards made no move to end the Teurreur. On the contrary, the
Law of 22 Prairial of the Year II (10 June) even intensified the Terreur. Everybody now felt threatened, especially Fouché, and you can't accuse him to be a reactionary. That was the cause of 9 Thermidor (27 July). It was only a matter of time until Robespierre and his friends would be overthrown, because everybody realized how insane his system was and that it needed to end immediately.
However, if ASB decides to continue the reign of terror, France will lose its leading political, military and cultural personalities, and that would be a very bad outcome.