Here we are. It's been roughly an entire day since Britain has voted to leave the European Union, a politico-economic establishment of over twenty countries founded in 1993. Over the past several months, the decision whether to leave or remain within the union has been affectionately referred to as 'Brexit', and the voting resulted in 51.9 percent in-favor of leaving the EU as opposed to remaining.

But here we are. Britain has decided to exit the EU, and the results to come are not as easy to look at as we might have assumed. British Prime Minister, David Cameron, who has spoken outwardly against leaving, has officially stepped down to a lesser role until the party decides on another leader. The International Monetary Fund has recently released a report indicating the troubling, economic consequences; the majority of the world is in shock and is voicing their concerns for the future economy. Brexit is a global-shifting event.

But we should back up. Why, if it seems to be such a drastically consequential decision to leave the EU, were so many people in favor of it?

The urge to leave the EU has been something of a "in-the-making" type situation. Decades of increasing growth, "with regard to the size and the reach of its bureaucracy, diminishing British influence and sovereignty", has been the major factor and eventually shifted from the minority opinion to one of real weight.

At first glance, and from a more psychological view, this makes sense. Britain feels as if they've become less of an economic and political player in the world. By leaving the union, they can re-establish themselves as such and also promote independent economic growth. At first glance, this is an act of reclaiming identity. And as an U.S. citizen, I personally can relate to that idea.

Much of what makes people proud in the U.S. is their independence and the (often misinterpreted) historical elements of how we as a nation broke free of an overbearing, bureaucratic empire to eventually become a global power in more ways than one. Sound familiar? It's not a hard concept to get behind (again, at first glance).

Donald Trump is even enthusiastic about the decision, as he tweets his observations of how "wild" Scotland is after the vote, as they - according to Trump - "took their country back." Though Scotland would of course be going wild, seeing as how they voted to stay in.

And therein lies the problem. Not the business and economic consequences, which have yet to be clearly defined so soon after and likely won't show any real effects for some time. But the ultimate division is that of the people within the nation. Again, the vote was roughly 51 to 49. That is, for layman mathematicians such as myself, a damn near tie. That's a very competitive first half of basketball; that's only three over the speed limit; that's close. While it is close, it's also representative of a huge divide. And whether the majority of the 17 million voters were informed enough to understand the significant impacts of the decision to leave, positive or negative, it's also clear that almost as many were against it.

I'm being redundant, but it's for a reason. Britain seeks to achieve independence, something many U.S. citizens can relate to, but they are ultimately creating a nation of isolationism and xenophobic cultures that is bound to disrupt cohesive, international cooperation - something the EU works to do. British Parliament member and supporter of Britain staying in the EU, Jo Cox, was tragically shot and killed days before the referendum. Her killer claimed in court that his name was "death to traitors, freedom for Britain."

The vote to leave is fresh and will take some time for the dust to settle. But the idea of Britain so blatantly revealing its divide of opinion is disheartening enough to question the legitimacy of Brexit's supposed positive effects. And as we look toward the 2016 U.S. elections, we find ourselves in a similar situation. A rather clear divide of opinions- half are personified by Donald Trump, who claims to re-establish the U.S. to its former greatness and "take it back" from, well, somebody. And the other half falls under Hillary Clinton, who seeks to essentially defeat Trump, while also becoming the first female president. Either way, it pits a nation against itself, breeding hatred. Though as Jo Cox had stated last year, "We are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us." Further dividing ourselves moves us away from the answer of understanding what we do have in common and what makes it so important to be united.