The road ahead is unclear. No state has left the European Union before, and the rules for exit  – contained in Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon – are brief. 

The Lisbon Treaty, which became law in December 2009, is designed to make the EU "more democratic, more transparent and more efficient" and is an agreement signed by the heads of state and governments of countries that are EU members.

Theresa May finally revealed ahead of her first speech as Prime Minister at the Tory Party Conference that she would trigger Article 50 no later than the end of March 2017.

That means Britain should officially leave the EU no later than April 2019. The process is supposed to take two years but many people believe that it could take longer. Triggering Article 50, formally notifying the intention to withdraw, starts the clock running. After that, the Treaties that govern membership no longer apply to Britain. 

The terms of exit will be negotiated between Britain’s 27 counterparts, and each will have a veto over the conditions. It will also be subject to ratification in national parliaments, meaning, for example, that Belgian MPs could stymie the entire process. The process is supposed to take two years but many people believe that it could take longer.

One option will be to simply recreate EU laws as British statute. But Civil Service insiders expect a new Brexit government to opt for something much more radical, and to use the opportunity of “throwing off the shackles” to re-regulate Britain.

It means that the Government would have to perform three acts simultaneously:

- Negotiate a new deal with Brussels

- Win a series of major bilateral trade deals around the world

- Revise its own governance as EU law recedes

Running the show would be an effective “Ministry for Brexit”, under a senior minister. Officials expect the scrapping of EU law could result in an avalanche of new legislation in every corner of Whitehall – perhaps 25 Bills in every Queen’s Speech for a decade.

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it. A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

The report stems from Spahn's appearance the night before on a television talk show broadcast by ZDF, one of Germany's main public broadcasters. He is often invited when shows are looking for an "angry conservative" and he didn't disappoint the previous night. He said that he doesn't find it "particularly enriching to drive through streets where I don't see any women on the streets, and if I do, they are wearing headscarves." The two left-wing participants in the talk show obligingly flipped out.

On this day, Spahn had traveled to his constituency, not far from Germany's border with the Netherlands, in the morning but was expected back in Berlin in the evening. CDU leaders were meeting to discuss the central resolution to be presented at this year's party convention, which kicks off on December 5. With general elections approaching in the fall of 2017 and Merkel having just announced her candidacy for a fourth term as chancellor, there would be a lot to talk about.

But Spahn didn't like the wording and was particularly bothered by the phrase "modernization's losers" because it sounded condescending. "That's not how we will win back voters we've lost to the AfD," he said, referring to the right-wing populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.

In the end, Spahn ensured that the phrase was deleted from the resolution. He also played a significant role in the inclusion of a host of other phrases, like Leitkultur, or "leading culture," a term referring to a guiding German national culture often evoked by conservatives, and "transit zones for refugees." And the sentence: "The events of last year cannot be allowed to be repeated." The reference is to the hundreds of thousands of refugees who flowed into Germany in 2015.

Spahn was able to push through these changes against the will of Merkel, who, in addition to being chancellor is also chair of the CDU. She would rather have left the resolution untouched. Despite just having announced her renewed candidacy, however, she was unable to prevent party conservatives like Spahn from changing the document. It is yet more evidence of the degree to which Merkel's authority has suffered in the last year.

On a Friday in mid-November, Spahn paid a visit to an elementary school in his electoral district. A fourth-grader asked: "Do you want to be chancellor one day?" Most politicians would have given the standard answer that they hadn't yet thought much about it. But Spahn said: "Let's wait and see. I enjoy being part of making fundamental decisions. We'll see what jobs might await."  There's no question: Jens Spahn has big plans.

The young man sitting in the cafe looks barely more than a boy - he hasn't shaved for a few days, yet he's a long way off achieving designer stubble. The hair on his chin and cheeks is still soft and his smart navy blazer and clean white shirt make him look as if he's in school uniform. It's not the image that 19-year-old university student, Goran, sitting far back in his chair with one leg crossed over the other wants to portray.

"The Americans loved our stories and we make money from them," he boasts, making sure I see the designer watch he's fiddling with. "Who cares if they are true or false?" Goran - not his real name by the way, he's not confident enough to reveal that - is one of scores, or probably hundreds of Macedonian teenagers who are behind a cottage industry in the small city of Veles which churned out fake pro-Trump news during the US election campaign.

After copying and pasting various articles, he packaged them under a catchy new headline, paid Facebook to share it with a target US audience hungry for Trump news and then when those Americans clicked on his stories and began to like and share them, he began earning revenue from advertising on the site.

Goran says he worked on the fakery for only a month and earned about 1,800 euros (£1,500) - but his mates, he claims, have been earning thousands of euros a day. When I ask him if he worries that his false news might have unfairly influenced voters in America, he scoffs. "Teenagers in our city don't care how Americans vote," he laughs. "They are only satisfied that they make money and can buy expensive clothes and drinks!"

The peddling of false news on lookalike American news sites is not illegal but there's something a little underhand and dirty about the whole game of misleading readers.

Before any of that happens, however, there may not even be an EU from which to Brexit. Other votes in Europe have the potential to derail the entire EU project, making our own convulsions over leaving seem irrelevant. On Sunday Italians go to the polls in their own referendum. 

In theory their vote has nothing to do with the EU: it’s over a series of constitutional reforms. But such is the state of politics and voter unrest in the EU and such is the setup of Italian politics that a No vote may have a direct impact on that country’s membership and so hasten the demise of the EU itself. 

Italy has long been a byword for political chaos: since the end of the Second World War it has had 63 governments. We have had 15. The changes proposed by Italian prime minister Matteo Renzi would cut the senate from 315 to 100 and limit its power, as well as abolishing elections to the senate, with members drawn from local government. 

Italians are angry: angry about endemic corruption, about a political class that seems interested only in itself, about the tens of thousands of migrants that pour in by the day and about unemployment of 11.4 per cent. No wonder there is a revolt. The Five Star Movement was founded seven years ago as a product of that anger: a populist revolt against Italian politics. 

Mr Renzi is likely to lose the referendum amid widespread public anger at the political establishment and economic turmoil in Italy. Jaisal Pastakia, investment manager at Heartwood Investment Management, said: “In all probability the Italian electorate is likely to reject Prime Minister Renzi’s proposals for constitutional reform. 

“Essentially, Renzi wants to reduce the power of the Senate - the upper chamber of parliament, allowing for smoother implementation of legislation and potentially a more stable political system. However, the referendum has turned into a vote on Renzi himself, whose popularity has taken a sharp dip since his election in September 2014.” 

Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi has vowed to resign if he loses the referendum - something that would spark huge political uncertainty. If there is a snap election, the anti-establishment Five Star Movement could rise to power and call a referendum over Italy’s membership of the eurozone. Italy leaving the euro would signal the break up of the EU’s single currency, leading to further disintegration of the European Bloc. 

The referendum result could hit Italy’s banks which remain vulnerable after huge amounts of bad loans led to bank shares falling dramatically.  Mr Pastakia said: “Italian banks’ ability and willingness to support investment remains a key headwind to economic growth, given high levels of non-performing loans (NPL).” 

Anybody who believes Hillary Rodham Clinton has been sent to the political graveyard by a Manhattan real estate developer has forgotten the cruel surprises of recent history (Remember the Greek referendum? Brexit anyone?). Democratic due process has devolved into something like ‘The Hunger Games’ for the rich - a sensational televised spectacle to entertain the elite every four years, while keeping the people believing they can effect real change.

Although it may seem implausible to some, Donald J Trump may be denied the presidency due to a democratic system that has been corrupted to the bone by excessive wealth, power and collusion at the highest levels. The Electoral College is scheduled to meet on December 19 to perform what, under normal circumstances, would be a mere formality of voting for either Clinton or Trump, according to the will of their constituents.

Needless to say, however, we are not dealing with “normal circumstances.” This is a battle the Democrats have no intention of losing, no matter what the Electoral College results tell us. The 2016 presidential campaign represents an epic power struggle that will determine the trajectory of US domestic and foreign policy like no other contest in recent history. No surprise, then, that neo-liberal lobbying groups have been exerting immense pressure on these electors to ignore the will of the people and “vote their conscience.”

Such dramatic setbacks, which are becoming the rule rather than the exception, lend credence to Mark Twain’s famous observation that “If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it.” In other words, the elite will always get what they want, regardless how the votes goes. Clinton seizing the White House through the backdoor would not be the strangest thing to happen in old Washington. Just ask George W Bush how he got elected president in 2000 by the Supreme Court, not We the People.

In Monday’s edition of the conservative daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, co-editor Berthold Kohler called in a piece headlined “The utterly unimaginable” for the new foreign minister to “subject German foreign policy to an overhaul, particularly with regard to its security policy aspects.” A “simple ‘same as before’ along the well-worn path” could not be permitted.

The new “path” advocated by Kohler consists of “higher spending on defence,” the “revival of compulsory military service,” and something which was for “German minds completely inconceivable, the question of our own nuclear deterrent.”

Kohler’s demand reveals what has been intensively discussed and prepared behind the backs of the population. Just a few days earlier, Christian Democratic Union (CDU) security policy expert Roderich Kiesewetter called in an interview with Reuters for the construction of a European nuclear deterrent, focusing above all on the expansion of the French and British nuclear programmes.

The FAZ is now going one step further. According to Kohler, the “French and British arsenals [are] too weak in their current condition.” Like Der Spiegel prior to the US election, he raised the demand for Germany’s own nuclear weapons and justified this by citing the alleged “withdrawal of America from the world,” which would continue under a future President Trump and further encourage China and Russia “to expand their areas of domination and spheres of influence.”

Last week, the European Parliament adopted a resolution that includes setting up an EU Operational Headquarters, establishing a "political leadership" for EU military operations, and raising the military budgets of all member states to at least 2% of their GDP. EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security, Federica Mogherini, continues to promote the idea of an "EU superpower."

Leading politicians and commentators are beginning to pick up the idea, previously launched by a number of experts, of the EU developing its own nuclear military forces on the basis of French and British nuclear weapons. However, for this, the French and British arsenals would be insufficient, according to a suggestive article published in one of Germany's leading opinion-forming dailies.