Leftists morose over Boris Johnson's U.K. election win.

If you aren't interested in a victory lap, there's no need to watch this.

Meanwhile in England...

Over in England, Prime Minister, and E.U. stooge, Theresa May has resigned after multiple unsuccessful attempts to ram through a horrible BREXIT deal in parliament designed to let BREXIT happen but really, just keep the U.K. as part of the E.U. 

What a disappointment as a Prime Minister, not even a shadow of Margaret Thatcher.

The E.U.'s "secret" strategy on Brexit

This is actually not so secret. The E.U. wants to make this hard for the U.K., which is ironic since Theresa May seems to have the U.K. making it hard on itself anyway.

U.K vs. E.U. on Brexit

European Union insider footage that shows their disdain for Brexit, the U.K. and anything not E.U. friendly.  

Well, Theresa May survived

British Prime Minister Theresa May has just survived a no-confidence vote among conservatives to remain Prime Minister.  This despite delivering such a weak-tea effete deal for Great Britain that those who voted to exit the European Union are probably having second thoughts now.

I'm not sure she will survive politically though, and she seems to realize that too.

Also while you weren't looking: trying to foil Brexit

British establishment is trying to sign a deal so bad for Britain to leave the European Union, that it destroys the Brexit movement.  Why else would this deal, destined to fail in parliament, be proposed for ratification?  OMG it's so bad:

I’ve said some hard things on this page about the 45th president, but credit where it’s due: He’d never have come back with the miserable deal that Prime Minister Theresa May is trying to sell to an incredulous British public. The famous dealmaker saw right away what had happened. “It sounds like a good deal — for the European Union,” he told reporters as details emerged.

For once, Donald Trump was guilty of understatement. This is the sort of deal that a country signs when it has lost a war. Under its terms, Britain will remain subject to all the costs and obligations of EU membership, but will give up its vote, its voice and its veto. In Brussels, they crow that the sole change, for at least two and probably four years, will be that the U.K. loses its Commissioner, its Members of the European Parliament and its vote when the EU makes decisions. If the remaining 27 members now pass a measure deliberately designed to harm British interests — to shift business from London to Frankfurt, say — the U.K. will have to apply it.

And at the end of that “implementation period”? The original idea, as the name “implementation period” suggests, was that the U.K. and the EU would use it implement a comprehensive trade relationship. In practice, they haven’t begun work on such a relationship, and the EU now has no incentive even to start.

Why? Because of the so-called “Northern Ireland backstop.” Unbelievably, British negotiators have agreed that they will remain within the EU’s tariff walls, and contract out their trade policy to Brussels, unless and until the EU side is satisfied that there don’t need to be physical checks at the Irish border.

The thing is, this is not going to turn out to be Brexit supporters turning on the idea. This deal is so blatantly bad for Great Britain, that it is actually the British establishment shooting itself in the foot. Nobody is buying that this is a good deal. No one is falling for it. So to put this to a vote, not only will it fail, it might actually topple the conservative majority in parliament. That's a bad thing. But with Theresa May on board with this deal, perhaps the party really needs a shake-up and a return to a Thatcher-like leader, just as the Republican establishment in America is undergoing a shake-up.

U.K. votes, barely, to keep Brexit alive

Theresa May read the tea leaves wrong.  Pollsters two months ago had her perched to get a mega-majority if she called a snap election.  Predicated on a mandate to strongly negotiate Brexit, she did so.  It was partly political but it seemed to be a shrewd move.  As election day approached the popular support numbers for the conservatives tanked and May has barely hung on to maintain a coalition government with the pro-Brexit DUP party.

It turns out the move by May was a political blunder, but to be fair, it was one she didn't see coming.  It will be interesting to see what the post analysis brings out.  Did ultra-leftist Corbyn bring out, a la Obama, a stronger than anticipated youth contingent of voters?  Or did, as the British MSM seemed to expound, lose popularity as people got to know her better?  At least an aggressive Brexit negotiation is still on track, but the election really feels like a badly missed opportunity for the Tories (conservatives) in the U.K. to strengthen their position for the next several years.  But in every problem there is opportunity.

Expect an emboldened Corbyn to be even more outrageous than he has previously and with that exposure comes the opportunity to paint him as the extremist that he really is, setting May (or her successor) up for a strong victory next time around.

For a great analysis of the results themselves, check out the Legal Insurrection take here.

Attention U.K. citizens, this is why you need to vote for Theresa May

More terror in London.  A stronger mandate for exiting the E.U. and giving Prime Minister Theresa May the strong backing to negotiate BREXIT forcefully and not leave the U.K. subject to any whims of the E.U. - especially on immigration and national security issues.

France's Le Pen has no shot of winning the election (à la Trump)

To read the opinion pieces in Western media, Marine Le Pen is a far-right nationalist candidate in France.  She won enough support to make it to the run-off second election.  While she is trailing the other top vote-getter, Macron, by a very substantial margin, so too did Donald Trump trail Hillary Clinton.  Trump as we know, emerged victorious.  So too was the case with Brexit, which was supposed to be a trouncing for the attempt to leave the E.U. but turned out to be a win for the Brexit supporters.

Le Pen is portrayed as a far right candidate.  That's what the media equates nationalism to these days, regardless of nation, regardless of any other factor.  If you are proud of your country, and want to put your country first, you are a far-right radical.  Nationalism is being repressed in subordination to globalism.  Without getting to far down into the rabbit hole of globalism helping a few versus nationalism being self-defeating, France is facing a question of nationalism, just as America and the U.K. recently have also done.

There is nothing wrong wanting to put your country first.  There is problems with radical nationalism just as there is with radical Islam - it can devolve into a hatred for others.  But there is a very, very long walk from issues like border security and trade and jobs to "destroy all others" .  The supposed far right or alt-right desire to fit the latter view is misleading.  This is why Trump won the election.  If the media tells you that you are a crazy loon if you support Trump, and you support Trump, and know you are not crazy, then perhaps the only possible conclusion is that the media is wrong.

Which brings us back to Le Pen.    She has a steeper hill to climb than Trump, and the establishment and practically everyone else is aligned against her and her supporters in favor of an untested newbie with no discernable ability to lead.  Nonetheless he holds a powerful lead, and Le Pen has a short window to overcome it.  Odds are she will not win, and I'm skeptical to put the same faith in the French people's spirit and pride as I do with the American people.  It's possible, and I am hopeful that she can pull out a victory.  France needs to step away from the brink of being culturally swamped by immigrants who hold neither western nor French values or culture in anything but contempt.

Le Pen does not have a 0% chance of winning. She is undoubtedly a long shot but a number of long shots have paid off in the past year. 

U.K. moving right,populist, or both

Unlike France, which is a muddle, in Britain conservative prime minister Theresa May has called a June election where she is expected to rout both the far left Labor party and the centrist party.  She could be headed for a historic majority thanks to disarray on Brexit on the left (among other things).

British Prime Minister Theresa May is sending the United Kingdom to the polls on June 8, three years early, citing the need for a strong mandate to negotiate Britain's exit from the European Union.

It is an about-face from May's earlier statements about an early election, but it is hard to blame her for wanting to go early. The polls suggest her Conservative Party is on track for a smashing majority against a divided Labour Party led by the hapless Jeremy Corbyn.

It would take a miracle for her not to have a powerful majority come this summer. Again, stay tuned.

Sex Pistols' Johnny Rotten - pro Trump?

This speaks for itself on both Brexit and Trump. Also on Islamic terrorism for that matter.

Brexit Divorce Papers Filed. Insane Bill Sent.

Today Britain has officially triggered the E.U. exit clause.  The E.U. responded vindictively.

Britain has officially launched the Brexit process, triggering Article 50 and starting a two-year countdown before the country drops out of the European Union.

The historic moment came as a letter signed by Prime Minister Theresa May was delivered to the Brussels office of European Council President Donald Tusk, notifying him of the UK’s intention to leave.

But the E.U. responded like a jilted lover.

As in many divorces, the first area of conflict is likely to be money. The EU wants Britain to pay a hefty bill -- Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the EU's executive Commission, put it at around 50 billion euros ($63 billion) -- to cover pension liabilities for EU staff and other commitments the U.K. has agreed to.

Britain acknowledges it will have to pay something, but is sure to quibble over the size of the tab.

Negotiations will also soon hit a major contraction: Britain wants "frictionless" free trade, but says it will restore control of immigration, ending the right of EU citizens to live and work in Britain. The EU says Britain can't have full access to the single market if it doesn't accept free movement, one of the bloc's key principles.

Both Britain and the EU say a top priority will be guaranteeing the rights of 3 million EU citizens living in Britain, and 1 million Britons living elsewhere in the bloc.

The two sides also appear to disagree on how the talks will unfold. EU officials say the divorce terms must be settled before negotiators can turn to the U.K.'s future relationship with the bloc -- and a deal on that could take a decade. British officials want the two things discussed simultaneously.

Like most divorces, this could get contentious.  Suggesting Britain owes $63 billion for E.U. staff pensions and "other commitments" is a good indicator of why Britons voted to exit the E.U.  If that's just the U.K.'s share of pension obligations, the E.U. cannot possibly think of itself as sustainable.

Why I'm becoming a Theresa May fan

Margaret Thatcher redux.  Britain is lucky to have Theresa May as Prime Minister.  Wait for her finish as she slaps down Jeremy Corbyn - it's really great.  Meanwhile she's got parliamentary approval for Article 50, which helps trigger the Brexit from the E.U. 

Apple versus the E.U. is more than that

I went over to the European Union press release database to see what it had to say about the tax levy it imposed upon Apple.  It's eye opening in it's over-reach.  Consider:

Following an in-depth state aid investigation launched in June 2014, the European Commission has concluded that two tax rulings issued by Ireland to Apple have substantially and artificially lowered the tax paid by Apple in Ireland since 1991. The rulings endorsed a way to establish the taxable profits for two Irish incorporated companies of the Apple group (Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe), which did not correspond to economic reality: almost all sales profits recorded by the two companies were internally attributed to a "head office". The Commission's assessment showed that these "head offices" existed only on paper and could not have generated such profits. These profits allocated to the "head offices" were not subject to tax in any country under specific provisions of the Irish tax law, which are no longer in force. As a result of the allocation method endorsed in the tax rulings, Apple only paid an effective corporate tax rate that declined from 1% in 2003 to 0.005% in 2014 on the profits of Apple Sales International.

This selective tax treatment of Apple in Ireland is illegal under EU state aid rules, because it gives Apple a significant advantage over other businesses that are subject to the same national taxation rules. The Commission can order recovery of illegal state aid for a ten-year period preceding the Commission's first request for information in 2013. Ireland must now recover the unpaid taxes in Ireland from Apple for the years 2003 to 2014 of up to €13 billion, plus interest.

Effectively, the E.U. is dictating to a member state, Ireland, how it must conduct its internal affairs, in particular taxation. Interestingly, if the EU is looking to accelerate Brexit type reactions, this sort of thing might do the trick. Clearly Ireland wanted Apple and acted in a way that they assumed would attract Apple to Ireland.

Unfortunately, the EU seems to think it knows what is better for Ireland than does Ireland. Bureaucrats seldom know better than businesses and in this case bureaucrats twice removed from the economic situation on the ground in Ireland are least likely to understand what Ireland needs and Apple needs. Nevertheless, it's not stopping the EU, though it should give member nations pause to reflect on the implications of the decision.

Collectivism Crushes

Excessive rules and regulations mandate conformity.  Conformity not only crushes individuality, it also crushes innovation.  How can one innovate when there are regulations about how everything should be?  And with a lack of innovation comes stagnation - an ersatz equilibrium imposed on a world that has not yet been (and never will be) optimized.  So things will ultimately grind to an imperfect halt with institutionalized flaws but perfectly robust rules. Rules that will eventually need to no longer be expanded because with a static world, no new situations requiring new regulation will arise. But everyone will be happy in their safe zones and we'll all be equal in our outcomes and no one will be a racist because, you know, there'll be rules against that.

Nigel doesn't want you making plans for him, E.U.

It'll be a truly flat world and as any bumps come up, they'll be hammered out of existence.  And by bumps, I mean new ideas.  It will become an economic and social straight jacket for the entire world. How dreadful.  How UNprogressive.  

This is exactly why the U.K. woke up to reality and decided they didn't want any part of such a bleak and moribund future.  It's about time.  I thought Margaret Thatcher's spirit had been crushed out of not only the U.K. but even her own political party. Not so.

I'll leave you with Bill Whittle's take on BREXIT and its meaning.  Let's hope this re-found sanity in the U.K. spreads across the Atlantic or is already re-growing the same roots here.

More on BREXIT

Via The Rebel, a discussion on BREXIT below spurred some thoughts for me, which follow.

Take the opinions out of the equation, there are some parallels that do indeed apply to the United States.  BREXIT does have some implications for the U.S. elections in November, and for Trump in particular, the vote was like a rebuke of the elite, and a rebuke of unfettered globalism. It's more like the equivalent of a vote to leave NAFTA and that plays into Trump's message.

Another concern that comes up as part of a broader question that I  have. Why is it socialists are pushing so hard for globalization?  Why are labor union leaders pushing for trans-nationalism in opposition to the interests of their members whose interests are mostly about secure, good-paying jobs?  Why did the Labor party in the U.K. push so hard to remain in the E.U.?  This is bizarro world stuff.

Right Angle on BREXIT

A good conversation on BREXIT with Bill Whittle, Scott Ott and Steve Green.

Why was the BREXIT result a surprise to everyone?

With waves of unfettered immigration, lost economic sovereignty a divorce from the EU was inevitable.  I'm surprised frankly that the vote was as close as it was.  It's led to a volatile  market reaction, bad news, but it should have been predictable.

In terms of the U.S., the populist nature of the vote portends well for Donald Trump''s candidacy.  Yes there's an ocean in between the U.K. and the U.S., but the common thread is the understanding that the status quo is not working for most people.  Hillary Clinton represents a corrupt status quo, Donald Trump represents a bull in a China shop style of change.  The BREXIT vote tells you where a lot of people's heads are at on that choice.

Why BREXIT? Ask Milo

Not much time to post this week, so here's Milo on why BREXIT.