Uh-oh! Britain votes to leave the EU! What does that mean worldwide and why?

It's only possible to answer in very general terms Rosie.

Simply put, the US will need to hugely amend it's foreign policy, which is predicated on what was the status quo.  Similar issues but to lesser degrees will apply to all countries outside the EU.

Some nations in Europe who are known to be dissatisfied with the EU may begin to demand a referendum of their own on the issue of staying.  Holland.  Italy.  Spain.  There are others - perhaps even France.

The nations that guide and most influence the EU will need to reassess their positions economically and, I believe, socially.  What is beyond doubt is that EU policy will be changed permanently by this.

Cameron is going, but it won't be immediate.  I expect Osborne to follow in due course.  

Much more than that it's difficult to say.  I haven't included bits of little wider interest, such as the possibility of a second Scottish referendum.  The current situation is like a slow-motion film shot of a dropped tray of food - all the bits of bacon, toast, breakfast cereal, etc are still gracefully flying through the air.  :)

I think it means Britain is screwed, but I hope I'm wrong. It will weaken our position in the world, but I doubt if the world outside the EU will be affected much. I don't think the EU will break up, as some predict, but who knows?

It means freedom and liberty are alive and well. It means people are finally waking up to this New World Order tyranny. Praise God today for individualism, common sense and personal responsibility. Great job Great Britain!!!!

Perhaps England will now celebrate an indepence day similar to our July 4th. How ironic!

Found this in my travels.  It's fairly accurate as far as I can see in general terms.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/brexit-objective-assessment-likely-impacts-all-you-need-paul-barbour?trk=eml-b2_content_ecosystem_digest-recommended_articles-61-null&midToken=AQF909g-A_Vd3A&fromEmail=fromEmail&ut=1r_5lGUnPt17k1

Thank you for your very helpful and colorfully stated reply MrWitch. It appears that the UK was the glue holding everything together.  Other countries may follow suit. What were the benefits of having a European Union in the first place and now what will be the benefits of breaking it up? An overall good, overall not so hot or  it is yet  to be determined? Is it a gamble or a sure thing? Why? Just heard about Scotland requesting a second referendum. And so the pieces slowly begin to fall. I hope you don't regret it.  I hope on balance  it turns out to have been the right thing to do for your country. :)                                .                   

 I dunno HarryD. Stock markets worldwide are falling. The US stock market isn't open yet but it is predicted to fall significantly as well. Please read the reply from MrWitch. I think it is very helpful. Thank you for your answer m'dear. I guess time will tell!  :)

It is VERY CLOSE to July 4 isn't it Stu B?  Maybe we can  coordinate celebrations. It's a momentous day for sure and who knows what all the fallout will be? I think  the road will be bumpy worldwide while everyone tries to adjust to the new normal. Thank you for your reply and Happy Friday to thee! :)                     

Merci mon ami! :)

Short term panic from a spooked stock exchanges and then 3 months later everything is back to normal...

I did read Mr. Witch's answer, Rosie. He must have been writing it while I was writing mine. I agree about Osborne going. America needing to amend its foreign policy strikes me as probably not such a big thing. The EU nations having to reassess their social and economic positions is similarly just a technical detail. No one believes there will be a Scottish referendum, as they just had one, and nothing has changed in terms of the feelings of the Scottish people since. Maybe a few years down the line, but not now.

The idea for the EU project itself was begun just after WW2 Rosie.  However the idea for some kind of EU can be traced back to the early 19th century.  Massive losses in empirical wars throughout the 19th century, which increased 10 fold and more during WW1, were taken as further evidence that European powers would simply continue to stab each other without wide ranging power held outside the nation states.

The scaffolding for the EU began to be put in place after WW2.  The Treaty of Paris came along in 1951 and began the process of trade assimilation.  Initially this inter-dependence was solely concerned with heavy industry production (iron, steel, coal) as known enablers of military aggression.  The UK joined in 1973 and at the time of joining the EU was essentially a trade body rather than a political one.  

That changed with the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, which created an EU with legal, political and economic power which was held superior in many areas to those held by the nation states.  There have been amendments and alterations to this, but the movement is clear and is summed up in what has become an EU mission statement, 'Ever Closer Union'.

All of which is dependant on certain things existing, like stable economies and social systems that can cope.  Both these things have been a pipe dream since the crash of 2008 and the refugee (note I do not say migrant) influx of recent years.  The EU has fairly rigid economic and social rules for it's nations to conform to and for would-be members to achieve prior to admittance.  This was abandoned with the entry to the EU of Greece, which was not subjected to the proper checks and balances prior to joining.

This, along with an insistence on a 'one size fits all' approach to economics  (and dominated inevitably by German economic policy), has left the southern EU nations with crippling unemployment and massive debt and few of the traditional remedies for these issues are either available (due in part to restrictive EU rules on how economies must be run) or working for these countries.

I've wobbled on a bit as usual and much of what I've said sounds bad, but the EU had and still has the capacity to work well for it's members.  At base it is a brilliant idea, but the implementation has been too ambitious and too ideological, without the flexibility that the real world often requires and without the necessary willingness to impose adequate oversight on new members.

Mr. Witch has given some good and comprehensive answers here. I think it may be worth adding that the proposed entry of Turkey to the union was one of the things which gave impetus to the Brexit campaign, especially since the free movement of people from Turkey was recently agreed, as a means of helping Turkey ease its refugee crisis. Turkey is a long way from fulfilling the criteria for full membership. It is just not gonna happen any time soon. I believe the entry of Turkey was first proposed in 1963.

Well I am of Armenian descent so my view of Turkey is this... that they still refuse to acknowledge that what they did to $1.5 millions Armenians was genocide. They deny and lie and say it never happened. I feel contempt for the government for not owning up to that. Bu the US government is too chicken-sh ** to call it for what it is.  Turkey is an important ally that is why the US refuses to admit the history that everyone knows. Many others countries have called it Genocide. But America is not brave enough or honest enough to follow suit. Sorry for  the  digression HarryD but all things Turkey suck for me unless and until the Government admits what they did. Thank you for your thoughtful reply and Happy Saturday to thee! :)

Thank you for your reply HarryD! :)