To the ones across the pond, how do you feel about leaving the European Union and going on alone? How will it affect your economy? Will it help you out, or hurt overall?

I saw the Pound Sterling has fallen over 10 cents against the US dollar today...to a level not seen since the 1980's. It's derailed our markets here in the US, with the Dow Jones (at post time) down nearly 500 points.

Sterling has always been a strong currency, I believe it will bounce back after the initial upheavel and as things get worked through.

From an Irish perspective, the repercussions will be seriously felt in our economy, and of course things like border controls at the border to Northern Ireland are likely to be reestablished, complicated for those who work on the opposite side to where they live. However, I don't expect that to happen immediately.

The first thing that will set the ball rolling is when the British PM declares officially to the European Parliament its desire to quit the union. Only then will changes begin to be implemented, depending on what they negotiate.


The bureaucracy is going to be dancing through hoops trying to sort everything out.

I wouldn't be too surprised if some of the fluctuations in the price of Sterling has more to do with speculators, hoping to make a quick buck, but using the vote to leave the EU as a cover.

Things may be tough for those of use living in the UK for a few year, but I feel we can finally put a sign up saying the UK is open for business without being crippled by tariffs in dealing with countries that don't have an EU trade deal.

Given the UK is part of the Commonwealth of Nations as well with an estimated population of 2.3 billion, I'm hoping we will have greater freedom to trade with those countries within the Commonwealth, and also help the economies of those poor nations as well by allowing them greater freedom to trade with the UK.

I heard reports that Scotland and Northern Ireland want to stay in the EU so the prospect exists that motions to break up the UK will once more be pushed forward. Scotland because their agriculture does well in the EU and No. Ireland for the ideas stated above by Santana2002.
Myself, I see a lot of prelude to war much as happened in the late 30s before WW II. Nations running around sealing trade and security agreements they know they will probably never honor. I pray I am incorrect in my allusion.

The matter gets very complicated seeing that not only Scotland and Northern Ireland have voted to remain in the European Union, but also 75% of the London voters opted in.

So if England and Wales definitively leave the EU, that makes about 3/4 of the London residents unhappy. What would they do? Move in large numbers to Scotland, (Northern) Ireland or continental Europe?

That's the thing with a referendum the majority wins. Great.

This is why I see the SNP as being completely two faced. On one hand they want an independent Scotland - free from control of the UK government - but are willing join the EU and hand control over to them because they think it will be better. Wales has had a lot of EU investment, yet the majority voted out of the EU because they recognised the real threat the EU is to sovereignty.

This is a graph showing how much is spent by the UK on the population in various areas of the UK.

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04033/SN04033.pdf

If Scotland gains independence, who long would it be before the English tax payers demand their taxes only be spend on English people.

It was telling though about what percentage of those who voted to remain in the EU were young as well, whilst the older generation like myself voted out.

I watched part of a debate last night where a young woman panellist literally called a respected British historian a "White little Englander" for his views on wanting out of Europe. He countered by saying she was acting if those who were of a certain age shouldn't vote.

I think this is why so many young people voted to remain, as they think they know it all and the older generation are stuck in the past.
That is not the case as the older generation have the life experience to way up what modern life has done for them but memories of what life was once like in the UK and how it was more prosperous that it is now long before the EU even existed.

It will take time but I feel once free of the EU and able to start trading with the rest of the world own the UKs own terms things will be very different and those who voted to leave will be proved right.

I've noticed that to be a trend, no matter where you live. Older folks don't like the idea of younger voters. I guess at my age, I fall in between (I am 38), but have taken notice in the younger generation doing that here in the USA as well.

I wish the UK well on their exit from the EU, and hope you prosper as a sole entity.

One other question I have (and yes, this is aimed at the Channel Islands), is how do they move forward as a Crown dependency, yet are not part of the UK?

Does the UK pulling out put economic pressure on the EU to boost the coffers by admitting Turkey (a mostly Asian country)? If Turkey isn't added, how will they take another collapse of the Greek economy? Will they act militarily, or will it be Russia that acts to control Greece? The breezes of War are stirring. Or, will a secession by a Spanish Provence cause a civil war (like the prelude to WW II)? I don't see the EU as having the fortitude to militarily step into a civil war in one of its member parties. That would mean the war would be bloody and the EU dramatically split between the sides. Or, will the UK come under assault for having gotten the ball rolling? None of the rest of the world will much notice what happens until the balance tips in France, just like the last two (2) WWs. Peace in our times. Right.

For me it's not about who should and should not vote, it's about weighing up both sides of the argument no matter what your age and listening to each other. As much as some voted out on pure protest, I feel some of those who voted to remain were to blinded by fear, and not looking towards the UKs long term future.

The UK in the past has learned to adapt and move on. I expect hard times ahead, but I'm optimistic for the future based on this. That is why I voted to leave the EU. To me the EU had a real chance to reform, but even now they still come across as being detached from reality of what their meddling has caused throughout Europe. I feel the threats and bullyboy tactics that some in the EU are asking for to frighten others from airing their grievances about how the EU run things is showing the EUs true colours of wanting a Federal Europe controlled by Brussels, and not elected officials in each nations own parliaments.

As for the Channel Islands I cannot say which way they will go. I suspect though if the feel Brussels try to end their special tax haven status they will stay as a crown dependency. As much as the UK government wants foreign companies to pay more tax for their UK business, I can see a deal being cut for them paying a bit more than they do now, but also be given concessions and tax breaks as well so they don't pay the full amount.

Spain has it's own national elections tomorrow. If those disaffected in Spain over the way the EU function could have their own protest vote. This is what I feel the EU really fears about the UK going alone. I think they feel that foreign investment in their other member countries may leave if they see the UK can make a success of itself outside the EU without EU trade restrictions. That is why some in the EU want to make an example of the UK to get their point across to scare others from voting to leave the EU. If the EU breaks up they lose their jobs.

As for Europe descending into war on the scale of World War 1 & 2 , even the EU will not be stupid enough to instigate that. They know the ramifications of what it will take to rebuild Europe afterwards, and the threat Russia may pose in taking back control in former Warsaw Pact countries and the rest of Europe.

With regards civil war, I can see only civil unrest at the most. At heart, and despite what they say, political parties are a self serving bunch of people, that is why the French government capitulates so easily when militants take to the streets, rather than take them on as happened in the UK during the 1980s when the Tory party took on the Unions.

Mostly our dependency is in Defence and to be honest when you consider that in WWII the UK abandoned us and the Channel Islands were the only part of the British Isles to be occupied by enemy forces then that seems to be of little importance. We do very little trade with EU countries, the UK is the main customer of our agricultural produce. We negotiate trade deals internationally ourselves in the main, that will continue. We are not a manufacturing area so have little to export that way.

Although not part of the UK or EU we are however in what is known as the Common Travel Area which consists of the UK, Ireland (north and south), the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands which means that anyone having the right to live and work in the UK can also live and work here. However, true Channel Islanders, those without a UK born parent or grandparent have a stamp in their passport (which has European Union on the front) which says that the bearer has no right of abode in the EU and cannot work, other than in the UK. Is that fair? A person from any EU country can come here but our people cannot go to their countries?

We seem to get all the negative things about the EU but no financial benefits.

The worse thing that could happen would be if the UK sign up to remain in a free travel area with the EU, we have already seen our population dramatically increase in the past 20 years (or less) and that can only get worse should that happen. It isn't so long ago that our population was about 85,000 and on an island of 45 square miles that is really enough, it is now several thousands over 100,000. Last year saw an increase of 1,700, that is about 200 increased births over deaths, the others moved here, 400 of those would be the likes of teachers, doctors, nurses etc and most likely from the UK, the rest mostly from EU countries.

A few years ago our government suggested that they could always break away from the UK, that might be an option.

If I'm understand this correctly, someone from Spain, France, Germany, etc., can work there on the islands, regardless of past ascendents, but someone born on either island cannot? That doesn't make much sense. So how would your grandchildren fall once they become working age?

Maybe I'm muddling it up and am backward thinking...?

No, sorry I didn't make it clear. Someone from Spain, France, Germany etc can come to the Channel Islands to live and work but a true Channel Islander cannot go to Spain, France, Germany etc except on holiday, they cannot live or work there. Channel Islanders are not prevented from working here.

My children, although born here, are not true Channel Islanders as their parents, and grandparents, were born in the UK so they don't have that stamp in their passports, my friend's children do have the stamp though.

Our local television station has posted the following (and more) on their Facebook page. People have short memories and of course the younger people didn't live through that.

Okay...that makes more sense...but why can other countries' residents come to the Islands and be able to work? Is that due to the "crown dependency" status the Islands hold?



Does that mean you are UK-born, Sue...or were you born on the Islands? I guess as an American, I'm trying to make sense of what will happen all over Europe with the UK deciding to break from the EU. The only thing I was aware of is that the UK never transitioned to the Euro when it debuted in 1999 (if I remember correctly - it was after I graduated high school, and my 20 year reunion was this past weekend in Texas).

Sue, how many generations need to be born on the Channel Islands for a person to be considered a true Channel Islander?

Legally all parents and grandparents, plus the person of course, need to be born in the Channel Islands to be legally a Channel Islander for the purposes of passports etc however, ask someone like my best friend and you will get a completely different answer. She describes her late husband's family as 'incomers' as they didn't arrive until the 19th century, she can trace her roots back to the 16th centrury.



We are not in the UK or EU is the reason so people who have no UK ties have no rights. The reason that others can come here and have rights is because we are in the Common Travel Area and also because of the deal the UK made on our behalf way back when. I believe that we were given the choice of staying clear back when the UK joined the EC as it was, or to have certain parts apply to us.

We have ruled ourselves for more than 800 years.

Yes, I was born in the UK, as was my ex-husband, we both came to work here in 1972 and met the day that I arrived. My intention was to stay no more than 6 months, ah well. I wouldn't want to live anywhere else now.

So now Boris Johnson is not running for leadership of the Conservatives.

Kinda looks like the dog that caught the car.

I am not sure what that saying means but I think that Boris (whom I adore) is probably wise to stand back at this time, whoever takes it on at this stage will find it hard to do right for doing wrong, I would think that he will step forward in a few years time when the dust has settled to a certain degree and when it is final the sort of deal the UK gets with the EU.

The freedom of movement issue will be the trickiest aspect I suspect.

I like Boris as a personality - he sometimes looks like a clown but he's really very sharp. However, I don't think he's suitable as a prime minister, not now, not ever - and I don't think Gove is, for the same reason; they're both journalists whose job has been to stand outside the tent p**ing in, but both are hopeless at managing teams, especially teams who know more about things than they do. Boris got away with running London during the Olympics because he had little no leverage over the Olympics management - funds were coming mostly via central government, the management team was already in place, and all he had to do was turn up and make faces for publicity shots. But picking a negotiating team to hammer out fine details of trade treaties? The Canadian treaty is 1600+ pages long, can you imagine how long the UK's will be? Gove will be terrible at that too, he hates experts who know more than him about anything (see Education Dept), and this is not the time for a bully boy who will shrug off details he can't be bothered with so that he can make a grand statement, we need someone who will have a clear vision and a way to get there, using the goodwill that has so far come our way from other countries in the EU.

I was extraordinarily upset by the referendum vote but now we have to make the best of it; it's clear that the Brexit campaign had no idea how to manage the consequences if they won, and they still don't know. What we need now is someone who can put together a strong negotiating team that won't bluff or bluster, and will get the best deal they can. Which probably means bringing home hundreds of UK bureaucrats from Brussels and getting them to pour over the fine print, for the next two-three years. Because if anyone knows how to steer a course through the Brussels red tape, it's them.

The only person who can put together a team is the Prime Minister, and he's said that it's a job for his successor, so he's not doing anything. I think the Brexit campaigners can be criticised for a lot of things, but it's a bit harsh to have a go at them for not managing the consequences when they're not in a position to do so.

I didn't criticise them for not having done it, I just don't think they'd thought too much about the fact they would have to do it, and I happen to think that some of them aren't at all suited to the task of managing the process. The fact that the process can't start yet doesn't mean they don't need a plan so whoever becomes PM needs to be good at that sort of thing.

Sounds like the problem the USA administration had 6 years ago in Libya and also is still having.

Has any thought been given to asking a former PM to come back to duty (Blair)?

That's not how our system works, mehaul. The person who is invited to be Prime Minister is the leader of largest party in Parliament (with minor parties added in should one party not have an absolute majority) and at present that party is the Conservatives. Who are in the process of electing a new leader to take over from Cameron. Blair was leader of the Labour Party so he couldn't be PM now even if he was in parliament, which he isn't. Assuming anyone thought that was a good idea, which they probably wouldn't.