Thanks, I wondered what views from abroad might be. I thought maybe it was believed to be of little consequence to anyone outside Europe. The US election is very important to us here in Europe but we have our own problems, as usual. Happily, it's a more globalized world and what happens on one continent increasingly affects another.

I basically agree with Myke and Charvak. I don't think Sir R is serious, but there was a statement (I think by the head of the Fed Reserve) which said that a Brexit will impact the World Economy, but won't cause a recession in the USA. Brexit might cause a recession in Britain and even in Europe, but that is the least of it. The effect really isn't known as no big country has left the EU before, so it's a leap in the dark.
The biggest danger of a Brexit is that there are other discontents in the EU and it might be the first of a domino effect, especially if Brexit were seen to benefit the UK.
The main difference in the British view and the Franco-German one is that the UK is quite happy with a 'two tier' Europe and an 'a la carte' approach. The Franco-German approach is much favored by the USA, perhaps Australia and others outside the EU. Their approach aims at 'Ever Closer Union' a very important EU term that is in the prime EU Treaties. Britain has a sort of 'opt-out' on that. I think the UK's approach is the correct one, but my explanation for it isn't short. In essence, it amounts to the fact that the 'carry on regardless' attitude of the Franco-Germans isn't working. It is a very top-down approach that has led almost to the collapse of the Euro and of the Greek economy. A bottom-up approach is needed too.

I think it is time for calm and carry on. Everyone knew there would be this economic downturn in the short run. Cameron has offered to resign and said he should do so before the Tory Party Conference (Oct 2016). That is just politicking as the alternative may be Boris.

This might be the best thing for Europe. Hopefully, it will stop the rise of right-wing parties in Europe and bring about the changes in the EU many have been calling for.

It isn't just about the economy. Maybe now there will be something done about the "democratic deficit" in the EU. The UK is still in the EEA and as Mr Cameron has said we must ALL now make this work...
https://www.gov.uk/eu-eea
The growth of right-wing parties has to be countered somehow. Uniting European peoples is the aim, not just creating dysfunctional and inefficient institutions. (The EU still can't decide on a capital city and spends £millions moving EU Parliament between Brussels and Strasbourg each month.) Increasing the political unity only at the highest level without the economic and other convergence that everyone had once agreed was a prerequisite for political convergence wasn't achieving greater unity. Nor was it providing the greater economic prosperity it implies. (Greece, Euro and the rise of extreme parties). There could be far more damaging consequences for Europe than merely a Brexit. This could be the shot-in-the-arm the EU needs. It depends on what happens next.

It doesn't affect NATO. There will be no legal vacuum or political instability. Change has to happen by some means and in a timely way as lack of change (too much stability) can also be a bad thing.

One of the things to learn from this is about politicians scaremongering. If Mr Cameron, Mr Major, Mr Junker, et al had stopped blathering about us taking a momentous decision on behalf of future generations and had pointed out things like the loss of our AAA credit rating this Brexit probably wouldn't have happened. We can apply to rejoin the EU at any future date.

People might think about when referendums are appropriate and what they are meant to achieve too.

The best thing is to keep Europe working together.

(Zeff ....I trust you were joking when you said ,"We can apply to rejoin the EU at any future date". ...... I can tell you now exactly what the EU's two word answer will be)

I have a high regard for you Watchman, but perhaps your words say more about you than about people in general? You might be correct that Mr Junker and others will react that way.

Lord Jones made the point today that if Remain had won we would expect Leave supporters to accept the decision and try again to make the EU work from within. It is incumbent on us to react as positively.

Supposing that your opinion is correct and 'you're out, you're out' is the general view in the EU establishment, what does that say about them? In that case, we were right to leave. I am trying to build a European community that attracts and rewards members, not punishes those who dare leave. Supporting democracy involves everyone trying to make democratic choices work and not sulking.

(By-the-by, the £ has recovered slightly already and the one ratings agency who say they will downgrade from AAA hasn't yet done so. Article 50 isn't yet invoked. I'll just watch for now to avoid any unjustified conclusion).

I really do appreciate all your comments.

"You aren't an outsider at all.." because it is a globalized world and one nation's actions affect another. Most USAmericans seem conscious of their especially crucial role in the world and their openness to comments from non-US-voters is highly valued.

There is no difference between the BBC article link Myke posted and this?...
http://www.teaparty.org/about-us/
I have to say I can't agree. I think your comments towards UKIP voters are insulting and therefore uncalled for, Myke. More importantly, I think your view is mistaken. I think you are sounding a bit extreme and asserting views with as much unnecessary excitement as UKIP. I ask you to consider if your tone might be seen as unduly agitated, because I think cool heads are called for at this point and the views of people like you are important.
http://www.ukip.org/

I can only repeat that Brexit is not caused by racism and it isn't about any such thing. Nor is UKIP, but the party farthest right on the spectrum always attracts the most extreme element.
Quote BBC: GAY MARRIAGE: UKIP supports the concept of civil partnerships, but opposes the move to legislate for same-sex marriage, which it says risks "the grave harm of undermining the rights of Churches and Faiths to decide for themselves whom they will and will not marry". Unquote.
There is certainly a religious element to UKIP, but the Tories suffer from that too....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30848534
Religionism is unrepresentative of modern Britain, especially among young people, but it is deeply rooted in the establishment and the work and intentions of almost all religionists here are respected if their superstitions are laughed at and mocked.

I hope my comments aren't too casual (if I'm "Jeff" above) :-) Right or not, I had hoped they were thoughtful and reflective. FDR wasn't known for being hasty. I actually don't dislike Mr Farage, I simply disagree with him.

It now appears that article 50 won't be invoked until October (if ever). Another referendum is possible if the case for it is strong and the winners of this, first referendum can be mollified.

Don't panic, Corporal Jones....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgonBt1oa9Y&list=PLHRpkGRK-AbvIXUGanJ1c2...
( A famous character here in the UK who, in old age, tends to panic)

"If those groups really believe in equality and freedom why have the white supremacist endorsed them so overwhelmingly?"
That's obvious. The Supremacists (et al) latch-on to whichever party seems the most extreme, right or left. They want people to see them as part of a wider movement rather than the relatively few extremists they are. People play into their hands when slur people like UKIP and the ruling Conservative Party unduly by associating essentially respectable political parties with extremists. To be thought powerful is the aim of the extremists. Instead, we (including UKIP) need to be united against them. I don't care if racist nutters endorse the Tories, UKIP or whoever. I listen to the legitimate supporters of those parties, not extremist hangers-on. UKIPs aims are what they say they are. If they become even more extreme, they will lose what little support they have.

Back to Brexit and its implications. A second referendum a la Denmark and Ireland looks like a good idea to me, but current circumstances don't seem conducive. I suppose it is a guessing game and we won't find out what UK leadership will emerge until October. There is no opposition, but nobody trusted Labour with the economy since Mr Ed Milliband became leader (predecessor to Mr Corbyn). So, there's been no effective opposition here for years. (Labour are divided in a number of ways).

Words from Mr Cameron: "this House must not stand in the way of the will of the British people" and telling us the referendum we've had was on behalf of our grandchildren and not just on the issue at hand. Those words apparently scupper the chances of a new leader calling referendum 2. At least, they indicate that the influential Mr Cameron isn't going to help avoid Brexit.

I don't think the majority of people are in favour of Brexit now, but the "leadership" we have doesn't look like it can take advantage of the window of opportunity that might present before Article 50 is invoked. We'll find that out in October, perhaps.

Even if Remain somehow won out against all the odds, Scotland might still go independent. Assuming Brexit goes ahead it could lead to a UK of only England and Wales with an independent London applying to join the EU. Many countries are not happy with the Structure of the UN now, so it won't necessarily be a matter of there being only four Permanent members, or of Germany taking the UK's place if the UK loses its seat. It could lead to a restructuring at the UN.

It is the growth of nationalism in Scotland that may end the UK as we know it. Brexit only makes it more likely and may be the issue that triggers it.