Britain is now in uncharted economic waters, the pound sterling having endured a big fall against the US dollar in the hours before and during the vote. That panicky depreciation might prove temporary, but there's every reason to suspect the world's fifth largest economy will face a prolonged slump in capital investment – a situation that may last last until negotiations with the EU over trade access to Europe's integrated markets are complete. This could take years. And should the EU seek to punish Britain during those talks – perhaps with the view to sending a pointed message to other members thinking of staging their own referendums – the country's still fragile economy may again slide into recession.

Britain's ability to shape influence and European affairs is now much diminished, even if, as leading advocates of Brexit claimed in recent week, that it would regain its "independence" after decades of suffocating rule from an allegedly distant and unaccountable parliament in Brussels. Britain's departure also risks weakening the larger European project, initiated by France and Germany, of entrenching peace, prosperity and liberal democracy across the continent.

That Britain should have embraced departure when all this was foreseeable suggests popular resentments about Europe and about Britain's place within it, were deep-seated. They were certainly more deeply embedded than the Remain camp – endorsed by the likes of US president Barack Obama and international central bankers – appears to have appreciated or recognised.

If the Leave campaign was criticised in many quarters for running a dishonest and misleading campaign, and for appealing primarily to people's emotions and base instincts, it may be argued the Remain camp was too intellectual and focused on economic repercussion when its entreaties should have been plainer and more visceral.

This campaign was not related solely to the EU's influence over British affairs, beneficial or otherwise. It touched on Britons' view of their place in the world, tinged as it is some quarters with a nostalgia for empire. And it turned heavily on the allegedly unwelcome presence in Britain of millions of migrants from less prosperous EU countries, drawn to London and elsewhere by the promise of work and a better life.

Whatever economic benefits these migrants have generated by their presence, many Britons have come to regard them as unwanted competition in their search for jobs. They also view them as increasingly hindered their ability to access health, education and social services quickly and easily. Wiser commentators have pointed that the liberalisation of labour markets is world-wide phenomenon and not limited to Europe. But globalisation has left millions of low-skilled worker in Britain, the United States, and elsewhere apprehensive about their futures and more receptive to the populist rhetoric of politicians like Donald Trump and Boris Johnson.

Mr Johnson, the Leave campaign's most energetic and effective campaigner, will probably succeed Mr Cameron as prime minister. The tasks ahead of him – negotiating a departure on terms that do not significantly disadvantage Britain, assuaging the anger and disappointment of the Remain camp, dissuading the Scots from embarking on another divisive quest for independence, and delivering on his rhetoric about turn back the forces of globalisation – are immense.

Mr Johnson was always regarded as the man most likely to succeed Mr Cameron, and probably would have done so before the 2019 general election. He now looks like he's landed the prize far sooner, and in quite audacious circumstances. But his triumph may yet end up being a case of "be careful what you wish for".