Perhaps Jim Mattis should have stuck it out after all.

Jim Mattis made the judgment that if his commander-in-chief no longer trusted in his advice it was time to go. He resigned hours after Trump's decision to withdraw the 2,000 US troops from Syria. But perhaps he acted prematurely. Honourably no doubt, but if he had stuck it out and continued to argue for a more phased withdrawal, he might have succeeded, making his resignation unnecessary. I know it's easy to say that in hindsight. But Lindsay Graham, that wily old Republican senator and supporter of Trump, went and had lunch with the president at the White House and came away saying Trump wasn't going to bring the troops all out in a one-off withdrawal but would manage it more slowly, only after Isis had finally been totally vanquished in northeast Syria. So Graham got what he wanted. Why didn't Mattis do the same? Why didn't he go to Trump and say: "OK, Mr President, I know what you're saying, and of course it's what you promised in your election campaign, but might I suggest you do it nice and slowly so that we can finish off doing what has to be done?" Trump might have listened. He listened to Graham who was publicly critical of his decision to withdraw the troops. Of course for Mattis the Syria question was not the first moment when he and his commander-in-chief had clashed. It had become a regular occurrence. Nevertheless Mattis's presence at the Pentagon and in the Trump cabinet was too important for him to consider resignation as the only way out. Mattis officially bows out tonight with a phone call handing over the reigns of Pentagon power to his deputy, Patrick Shanahan. I suspect Shanahan will only be the acting defence secretary and won't get the top job. Who knows, perhaps Trump will offer it to Lindsay Graham, and Graham will accept it. He would probably only have to do two years. Either Trump will fail to win a second term, or if he does succeed - beating the likes of Senator Elizabeth Warren who announced her 2020 presidential bid today - he will want a new and fresh cabinet.

Best news for 2019 would be no Brexit

There are 89 days left before Great Britain and Northern Ireland leave the European Union. Brexit Day is March 29. Liam Fox, the international trade secretary and a keen Brexiteer, believes there is now only a 50-50 chance of Brexit ever taking place unless Parliament approves Theresa May's deal negotiated with Brussels. Hurray, that's good news! He of course is appealing to MPs to say yes to the May deal so that at least the UK will be able to leave the EU on March 29. My view is the opposite. If the alternative to the May deal is a no-deal and leaving in chaos then I am totally against it and would prefer all MPs to go for the Theresa option. But if a genuine alternative, following a no vote to the May deal, is to give the whole thing up and revert to the status quo-ante, ie stay in the EU and carry on as before, then I'll shout from the rooftops, "Vote No, MPs". Whether this alternative requires a second referendum I don't know. I have always been against a second referendum because I feared the result would be even more confusing and disastrous as the first one. But what if a miracle happens and a large percentage of those who voted Leave the first time are now so sick of the whole debacle that they decide, oh hell, let's just stay in the EU. Politicians have said that a second referendum would be a betrayal of the 17 million who voted to leave in 2016. But, hang about, that's absolutely not true. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that 50 per cent of the 17 million leavers change their mind in a second referendum and vote stay. That would mean that only eight and half million people would feel betrayed. That's still a lot of people but in a democracy, that's a helluva lot better and more manageable than having 17 million people taking to the streets. So, Liam Fox, I hope your prediction is on the right lines. Maybe just maybe by March 29, this country of mine will come to its senses and say: "Let's stay in the EU." But unfortunately I don't have much faith in Dr Fox's political judgment. And of course his intention in making the prediction was to try and put pressure on doubting MPs from all parties to go for the May Brexit deal. The vote is due next month. I believe very very strongly that it is in the best interests of this country's future to STAY in the EU. So please we need a lot more politicians to come forward and say: "For the Brexiteers this is your last chance. Vote for the May deal or the government will step in and cancel the Brexit plan altogether and revert to the pre-referendum position." To hell with the storm it will cause. Just do it!!

Is Trump enjoying shutting down the government?

You get the feeling that Donald Trump actually likes playing games with the governing of the United States of America. He is responsible for the current shutdown because he had a change of mind and decided to take the Democrats full on and give them an ultimatum: money for The Wall or else. We had shutdowns in the Obama administration. It's one of the peculiarities of the American political system. But you never thought of Obama sitting at home or in the White House grinning from ear to ear as millions of federal workers went unpaid. Trump on the other hand seems to be determined to sit this one out, never mind the suffering of families as the pay cheques stop coming. All he does is spell out the terms to bring the shutdown to a halt. Give him the $5 billion he wants to start constructing the wall along the southern border. Oh and he is also putting all the blame for the political impasse on Nancy Pelosi, fast becoming Trump's hate figure in the Democratic Party. Between the two of them it's difficult to see where there could be a hint of a compromise. There IS no obvious compromise because of the two sides' totally different views. Shutdown for good or $5 billion. Someone has got to surrender, but with the Democrats and Pelosi at their head about to take control of the House of Representatives, they are not going to start their rule in the House by giving into Trump. The government shutdown could go on for weeks or months by which time there are going to be a lot of very angry people. Who will they blame: Trump or Pelosi? Trump is hoping all his supporters will blame Pelosi. After all, he promised a wall in his election campaign and that's what his supporters are expecting, nay demanding. How on earth is this going to be resolved? Trump cannot afford to back down now. He did so a week or so back and was crucified by his right-wing supporters. He can't make that mistake again or his popularity will drop to zero. The only compromise has to be a slight give on both sides: Pelosi offers $2.5 billion but says it's just for repairing, expanding, atrengthening existing fencing along the border, and Trump agrees but tells everyone it will mean he can start building an actual wall based on one of the many designs which have been presented by specialist contractors. That way Trump and Pelosi can each claim victory and federal workers can get back to their jobs and earn some money once again.

The instant impact of Trump's troop withdrawal from Syria

The impact of Trump's decision to pull all 2,000 US troops out of Syria has been huge, even though the withdrawal has yet to begin. All the remaining players are making their moves: the Syrian regime forces have swiftly moved northeast to fill the vacuum. The Kurds who once relied on the US have taken the astute and safe option by inviting Damascus to send troops to occupy the key stronghold of Manbij in northern Syria which until now has been occupied by the US-trained Syrian Democratic Forces. The Kurds will leave, avoiding what was fast becoming an invevitable invasion by the Turkish army which has been building up forces on the border for the last few weeks. The Kurds are Turkey's main enemy. They are seen as terrorists. While the Americans were still in play, President Erdogan of Turkey was reluctant to send his army in to attack Manbij because of the risk of fighting and killing Americans. But Manbij is now in Erdogan's crosshairs and he wants the Kurdish-occupied town to be filled with Turkish troops. So what will he do now that Assad's forces are entering the town at the Kurds' request? Erdogan will no longer have an excuse to attack Manbij because the Kurds are leaving. It's all a win win win for the Assad government which has already recovered about three-quarters of its territory and has retained control of every major city. Trump effectively gave Erdogan carte blanche to do what he wanted in Syria when he told him in a phone call last week that he was withdrawing the US troops for good. But now the Turkish autocrat has to decide whether he wants to take on the Syrian army or just continue to pursue the Kurds wherever they go. He doesn't want them anywhere where they might try to declare an independent state. All of this is in the interests of Russia and Iran which will consolidate their gains and back Assad all the way. Provided some, if not all, of these protagonists continue to attack Isis in the northeast of Syria, then Trump's unfinished job of destroying Isis will be handed to other players. If that works, then fine. In truth, 2,000 US troops were never in a position to dominate territory in Syria. They were only there to help the Syrian Democratic Forces finish off Isis. That was their sole function. Trump must have realised that. So letting someone else do the last bit almost made sense. But only if Trump cares not a fig about what happens to Syria in the future and is indifferent to Russia and Iran gaining a political and strategic advantage in the region. And that is the only assumption than can be made after his announcement last week on the troop withdrawal. Some analysts have said that the Trump announcement was a disaster for Israel which will now be faced by a a rejuvinated Syria, an exultant Russia and an ever-deadly Iran across its borders. But Israel has shown again and again that it can defend itself, judging by the now regular airstrikes on Iranian arms and missile dumps in Syria. The withdrawal of 2,000 US soldiers from Syria is upsetting for them but the Israeli military will carry on doing what they have always done - bomb whatever they judge to be a threat to the safety and security of Israel.

What would $5 billion buy, apart from a bit of Trump's wretched wall?

Donald Trump has gone on so much about wanting Congress to cough up $5 billion for his south border wall with Mexico that you might think that's all he needs to keep the "baddies" out. But of course that's not the case at all. It has been estimated that $5 billion would provide a wall to fill up only 215 miles of the 2,000-mile border. So there would be a long way to go. Congress knows that if they give in this time and hand over $5 billion, the president will be back to ask for more and more and more until his wretched wall stretches like the Great Wall of China across the whole frontier. But it's not just about the wall. It's the whole concept of keeping people out of the United States by building a massive wall. Like someone has said, it's a Middle Ages idea. Will the US border patrol officers be required to stand on the top of the wall with pots of boiling oil to pour on anyone attempting to climb up? (There will no doubt be a thriving industry in extendable ladders on the Mexico side). But $5 billion is not small cash either. With $5 billion in your pocket you could build a town-full of houses or provide meals for the homeless for a decade, or build one and a half aircraft carriers. But Trump wants his wall because that's what he promised in his election campaign, and this time he seems prepared to hold out until Congress agrees. The government could be shut down as a result for weeks, or months, depending on who blinks first. The wall is one of his great failures so far in his presidency. He managed to get the courts to agree a version of his desired ban on certain people (Muslims) coming into the country, he got his chosen judge onto the bench in the Supreme Curt, he has announced the withdrawal of US troops from Syria, he has scrapped America's involvement in the climate-change agreement and US participation in the Obama nuclear deal with Iran, all of which were his election promises. But there is still no prospect of a wall, and I suppose Obamacare is still running, so that's a failure too. But the wall is his thing! He wants that wall. He needs that wall. Now where did I hear that before?

Trump visits Iraq but doesn't care about US allies in Syria

At least Donald and Melania Trump did one thing right. They went to Iraq to see the US troops who serve there with very little recognition from the people back home. Iraq has become like Afghanistan. The war and post-war and post-Isis have been going on for so long that most people are probably bored with the Iraq problem which is tough for the servicemen and women who still have to grind out their days in the intense heat and hostility of Iraq and try to help bring the country to its senses. There are 5,200 American troops from different services still in Iraq, training and advising the Iraqi security forces and so far Trump hasn't demanded their withdrawal. That time will come no doubt but at the moment he has satisfied himself with the pull-out of 2000 troops from Syria and 7,000 from Afghanistan. So he turned up with his First Lady to speak to the troops in Iraq, his first visit to see American military serving in an overseas assignment since taking office in January 2017. He wasn't shy about talking through his decision to withdraw the troops from Syria. He just said it was time for someone else to destroy the remnants of Isis in Syria and made it clear he was relying on the Turks to do the job. Well, we'll see. I don't suppose the Turks will be very discriminatory when they invade northern Syria with their tanks and armoured personnel carriers. President Erdogan may have told Trump he will finish off the Isis militants but really he wants a chance to eliminate the Kurds who, despite their brilliant achievements on the battlefield against Isis with American firepower and training, the Turkish autocrat believes they are terrorists and threaten the security of his country. If and when hundreds of Kurdish fighters die after the Turks invade, it will be difficult not to accuse Trump of betraying America's former allies and comrades. Meanwhile, quite what the British and French special forces will do once their American colleague leaves northeastern Syria, I don't know. They are relatively few in number and, like the Kurds, rely on the US to fight and train alongside them, and in far superior numbers and with far superior firepower. Once the Americans have gone home, they will be lonely warriors with an uncertain and much more dangerous future. Just like the Kurds.

Trump and his new chief of staff share Christmas bad grace

There's nothing like a bit of Christmas cheer for everyone. But this year two people have shown about as much grace as the head of New York's mafia godfather. First of all is Donald Trump, the president of the United States of America. His most loyal, trustworthy, experienced, work-devoted defence secretary Jim Mattis was basically given the boot. Ok, Mattis resigned after very sensibly deciding he could no longer work for a president who completely ignored his advice. But after Trump agreed with Mattis that he should leave in February to give him enough time to find a suitable replacement, the president had second thoughts. He decided he didn't like the tone or implied tone of Mattis's resignation letter and as a result ordered him out of the Pentagon forthwith, and announced his successor - Mattis's deputy - would start on January 1. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that Mattis was frogmarched out of the Pentagon accompanied by security people. And, of course his security clearance will probably be cancelled. So the poor general who had served his country and put his life at risk on numerous occasions and had worked all hours to keep the president of the United States from behaving recklessly (failing unfortunately), was out out out! Go away, Trump basically said. Bad grace taken to its worst degree. Then along comes Mick Mulvaney, the acting chief of staff, to add his bit of bad grace. A highly distinguished official, Brett McGurk, who as special envoy to the US-led coalition fighting Isis in Syria, had toiled for more than three years, first as Obama's appointee and then retained by Trump, also resigned. He is a good guy. Everyone liked him and he kept the coalition of 60 countries going in the right direction. He resigned after Mattis because he, too, thought Trump's decision to withdraw all 2,000 US troops from Syria was wrong and undermined everything he had been trying to do. Trump stepped in and said the resignation of McGurk was unimportant, but Mulvaney went one big step further in the bad grace department. He said he had never heard of Brett McGurk or his job. I suppose he thought it was clever to say that but it was totally insulting to McGurk and all the good work he had achieved and it showed the new White House chief of staff to be an ignorant, disrespectful idiot. There are other words I could have chosen but it's Christmas. Happy Christmas to everyone.

Was it a drone? NO just chaos

A drone or a number of drones or no drones at all brought Gatwick airport to a total standstill for nearly two days and ruined more than 100,000 people's Christmas holiday plans. The whole country was in a lynching mood. Whoever was to blame was fast becoming the most hated person in the UK. So when a very ordinary-looking man and woman were arrested at their home in Crawley, on the fringe of the airport, you could almost hear the cries for revenge and justice and, well, lynching. Even Theresa May climbed on the bandwagon and said the culprits could be sent to prison for five years. But then they were released uncharged, and the police subsequently cast doubt on whether there had been any drones flying over the Gatwick runway in the first place. The police and airport authorities had acted on the basis of witnesses who claimed to have spotted the drone or drones. Despite all the CCTV cameras dotted around the airport, there was apparently not a single image of a drone in the air over Gatwick. What a total farce!! It's one thing to be ultra cautious but to shut down the whole airport because someone somewhere may have seen something that looked like a drone hovering is unbelievably bizarre. What fools there are in authority. It was a major major crisis, but all for nothing. If it wasn't so serious, it could almost make you laugh. One thing that has to be mentioned is that certain airlines with licences to fly in and out of Heathrow made huge profits out of it. Passengers with cancelled EasyJet and other flights frantically called up British Airways and other companies to see if they could get flights out to their holiday destinations. A member of my family flying into UK from Spain was quoted 600 Euros for four one-way tickets to Heathrow. By the time he reached the pay stage online, all the 600 Euro seats had gone and he was offered Club Class one-way tickets for four at 1,700 Euros!! Way more than double the cost! Out of desperation he grabbed these extortionately expensive tickets - extortion is the right word - but when they got on board they were informed there was no food for them. At 1,700 Euros, there was NO food. And all because, allegedly, there were suspected but probably non-existent drones flying around Gatwick. Disgraceful.

Trump is beginning to anger Republicans

Trump's extreme Trumpery is beginning to seriously worry, anger and infuriate members of his own party. His outrageous impromptu decisions and positively callous way he deals with his most trusted and trustworthy cabinet members are causing mayhem in Washington, and the Republican Party is pi..ed off. It was fine at the beginning of his administration because Trump's America First suited them and his determination to carry out his campaign promises could not be faulted. But the abrupt resignation of Jim Mattis at the Pentagon, a much-revered member of Trump's cabinet, has shocked everyone of Republican persuasion. Republican Senator Rand Paul was one of the few voices to speak out in favour of Trump's decision to pull out the 2,000 US troops from Syria - again it was a campaign promise - but even he would surely have preferred Mattis to stay as defence secretary. It's a pivotal moment for Trump. If he angers his own party, what chance has he got of getting anything done, and what risks will he be creating for himself if the Democrats start impeachment proceedings once they take over control of the House of Representatives next month? The Republican senate majority gets bigger next month which should make life easier for the president. But if he continues in his current vein, and more key people resign, even some formerly loyal Republicans might think of joining the Democrats to oust Trump from power. It seems unlikely at this point but if Republican doubters lose faith in Trump and fear he will do long-term damage to the country, will they be courageous enough to vote against him in any impeachment proceedings? As Trump pushes ahead to a reelection campaign for 2020, he might be wise to consider these questions. As for the Democrats, they probably hope his impetuous leadership style will lead to a disaster, and then everyone of whatever political persuasion will want him to go.

Donald Trump has gone mad!

What an extraordinary two days in Washington. Donald Trump has done a triple whammy attack on his closest military advisers and the whole of Congress, and there's probably more to come. He has earned the top prize for being the most impulsive, most reckless, most dismissive, most obstructive president in living memory. He doesn't care what his most experienced advisers advise. He just turns round and says "ya boo sucks, I'm going to do things my way because I know best". It's beginning to be scary. Apart from ordering all of the US troops out of Syria and half of the 14,000 troops from Afghanistan, he did an about-turn on signing the federal budget and refused to stop a shutdown of government unless Congress agreed to give him $5 billion to build his wall on the southern border. To add to the misery of the poor state workers who will now not get paid as they prepare to spend Christmas with their families, Trump made it clear he didn't care a bit whether the shutdown lasted a long time. He reversed his previous decision to sign the federal budget without the funding for the wall after his most right-wing Republican supporters went ballistic. He caved in overnight and told Congressional leaders: "No I shan't sign your budget, shan't shan't shan't." Like a spoilt child. It's an extraordinary way to behave. He obviously thinks that Congress will surrender and give him the money he wants. But the Democrats and some of the Republicans think the wall is a waste of money and pointless and stupid. So why would they surrender? It's going to be a cliffhanging drama which will spoil Christmas for millions of workers and cause deep deep divisions. Why has Trump behaved like this? What's got into his head? The incoming chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, has said he will let Trump be Trump. Bu that's what he does already. Even the four-star retired General John Kelly couldn't restrain him, and with Jim Mattis leaving the Pentagon in February, who is going to keep this president under some sort of control. John Bolton, the national security adviser, has some crazy, wild ideas of his own, so he's not going to be the man to temper Trump's irresponsibility. Mike Pompeo has too much on his plate in Foggy Bottom to rush to the White House every moment to check on what Trump is going to tweet next, and the president doesn't listen to any advice from any leaders anywhere. The United States of America, a country with a great constitution and a great record of humanity and leadership, is in the hands of an increasingly unpredictable individual. Yes, it's scary.

Trump dismisses his generals' advice on Syria

In US history there have been numerous occasions when the incumbent president has listened hard to the advice of his generals and admirals and have then decided to go in the opposite direction. This, of course, is their constitutional right. The president is the civilian commander-in-chief of the US armed forces, and the military are the servants of their civilians masters. And, it has to be said, the military are not always right. They might want to go on bombing and fighting for the glory of the nation. But at some point the Big Chief civilian is entitled to ask: "Why are we there still? What are we doing and is it serving a purpose any more, and if there is still a mission to undertake why can't someone else do it for a change?" I'm sure Donald Trump must have asked all these questions before deciding that the 2,000 US troops serving in northeastern Syria should be withdrawn. Most of them are special operations troops but there are also Marines, forward air controllers targeting for airstrikes, engineers, combat medics and logistics units. Most people who know anything about the complexities of the battlefield in Syria would think that the special operations troops and marines etc still had a job worth doing, helping the brilliant Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces to kill off the remnants of Isis still skulking in the region. The remnants by the way probably number several thousand, so it's not all over. Isis in Syria and Iraq have been pretty well finished off but they are still there and not giving up and killing every day. Obama promised that the coalition campaign would totally destroy Isis. It hasn't! But Trump has had enough and seems to think that the Syrian regime forces, Russians, Iranians and Turkish army can complete the destruction, without the Americans. That may well be the case but when Isis finally puts up the white flag or fights to the death until the last man standing is filled with bullets, the Russians and Iranians, in particular, who have been the loyal backers of Syrian monster Assad from the beginning will be the ones leading the victory march and will have an assured and permanent role to play in a post-war Syria. The Iranians will be delighted by Trump's announcement. Putin has already said it was the right decision. Ho ho, of course it was - the right decision for him, Putin. I noticed - did Robert Mueller? - that Putin, when talking to reporters, referred to "Donald". His pal Donald perhaps!! Trump has placed Jim Mattis at the Pentagon in an awkward situation. Should he just accept the decision of his president or resign in disgust? If there are no US troops on the ground, the US will cease to have any influence in an absolutely key part of the Middle East. Was this not pointed out to Trump when he spoke to his advisers? He must have been. But Trump is Trump. He said during his campaign that he would pull troops out of Syria and he likes keeping his promises which, I guess, is pretty unusual for most political leaders. He tried a few months ago but was dissuaded by Mattis and others. This time he has rejected their arguments, never mind the consequences. And now he has his eye on Afghanistan where there are 14,000 US troops. He has told his special envoy to current peace talks with the Taliban in Qatar to offer the withdrawal of all US troops if the insurgents give up the fight and implement a total ceasefire. Trump is in pull-out mood!

Is Theresa May a stupid woman?

In the midst of all the planning for a no-deal Brexit which for some bizarre reason includes putting 3,500 troops on standby - on standby for what exactly? - there is now a huge rumpus about a terribly important issue: is the prime minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland a stupid woman? The story has been running all day, as if it's more important than putting troops on the streets or stopping any immigrants coming in who haven't got a doctorate in mechanical engineering or a degree in nuclear physics (not quite what Sajid Javid, Home Secretary, said in the Commons today but pretty well along those lines). The stupid woman thing has been raised because Jeremy Corbyn, Labour party leader, was seen to mutter something under his breath which looked distinctly like either "stupid woman" or "stupid people". He was lip-read saying something like this after Theresa May had stood up in the Commons and tiraded against him for his Brexit stance (he doesn't actually have a Brexit stance) and made a (oh dear) stupid comment about how it was the pantomime season and hohoho did he have a Brexit policy oh no he doesn't. All VERY stupid. So hardly surprising if the leader of the Labour party did say "stupid woman" because she was being rather stupid. But under the laws and regulations of the House of Commons no MP can insult another. And calling the prime minister a stupid woman, even if she was being stupid, breaches the rules and therefore Corbyn is under pressure to apologise to her. I think he said "stupid people", because it wasn't just the PM braying like an ass but the whole Tory collective. Being panto season it was supposed to be a bit of fun and, lord knows, we could do with a bit of fun at this time. But we are currently in a serious serous situation vis a vis Brexit and the future of this country, so a row over whether Corbyn said Theresa was a stupid woman or not is a total sideshow. But everyone has gone mad. Everyone in the House of Commons that is, and, of course, all the newspaper parliamentary sketchwriters for whom this little incident is a gift. So please, prime minister and would-be prime minister, forget the panto season, and get on with making sure this beloved country survives.

Democrats eager to start impeachment investigation against Trump

Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Speaker of the House-designate, is wisely trying to restrain her colleagues who are eager as hell to begin discussing impeachment of Donald Trump once they take control of the House of Representatives next month. Being too eager may turn out badly for the Democrats. Frst, because Robert Mueller has still not finished his special counsel investigation into the allegations of collusion between Russian officials and the Trump campaign team, and it seems sensible for them to wait until it is. And second, if the Democrats go impeachment-crazy next month it might turn a lot of voters off and make it difficult for prospective Democratic presidential candidates hoping to beat Trump in 2020. They would very quickly be seen as Trump-impeachment candidates rather than candidates in their own right. That might work later in the campaign but certainly not in early 2019. It will be a tricky timetable decision for Pelosi. She will want the Democrats to be viewed by the public as the respectable party getting ready for governing, not a party of Get-Trump-At-All-Costs fanatics. Once Mueller reports his conclusions, of course, Pelosi and co will probably have far more material to exploit if and when it is decided to go for impeachment. There is every expectation that sometime in the early part of the New Year, Mueller will go public with his findings. Will there be a bombshell or a series of damp squibs? An impeachment-type accusation against Trump himself or just a long list of doubtful goings-on without a specific prime facie case of Trump/Moscow collusion? A lot of the Mueller stuff has already been made public, with all the indictments announced. So what's left are the final chapter and the overall conclusions. In other words, the Mueller verdict. If the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee can restrain themselves until Mueller has spoken, no one will be able to accuse them of interfering or overlapping with the Mueller team of investigators. Pelosi is a clever and highly experienced politician and so far she seems to be making the right choices. If she puts a foot wrong Trump will come crashing down on her with big boots on. That would not be a pretty sight.

It's now no-Brexit at all or no-deal Brexit

There has suddenly been a rush of alternative Brexits suggested by ministers, former prime ministers, so-called expert commentators, and by all the monkeys in London Zoo for all I know. They range from a People's Vote for us all to decide what we want, a managed no-deal, Theresa May's Brexit deal (small hope for that), the Norway plus option, the Canada plus plus option, a renegotiated May plan etc etc. But actually, although there is a lot of enthusiasm right now for a second referendum to give the people a chance to make up their own minds - again - I believe there are now just two feasible options on the table: a no-deal Brexit, what used to be called a Hard Brexit, OR no Brexit, in other words, stay in the EU and forget what has been going on for the last 20 months. My wish and desire and hope is that the latter will be the end result and we can all go back to living our lives again. But that would be extraordinary and potentially dangerous because millions of people would feel betrayed, and disgusted, and rebellious. So I am of the opinion that whatever Brexit deal is put forward, whether it be a sightly revised or cosmetically clarified Theresa May one or some version of a Norway or Canada trade-association agreement, none of them will be acceptable to the majority of MPs in the House of Commons. So none of them will get the required approval. After all, if the Norway and Canada options were dismissed so early on in this process, why on earth should they suddenly look the real deal now, 20 months later? Norway and Canada are off the books and off the table surely! So it's no deal, "managed" or otherwise. I presume "managed" means the government actually takes every precaution to make sure a no-deal Brexit doesn't destroy the economy which would be pretty sensible. I don't know how nightmarish a no-deal will be. The government has just set aside another £2 billion to be ready for the chaos, and ministers keep on talking about the need to stockpile medicines etc. So preparations are underway. This, I'm afraid to say, is the way forward. There will be no deal. One thing, however, that could screw it up is that a huge majority of MPs have indicated they would never vote for a no-deal Brexit. Ooops! But by then there will be nothing else for them to vote for!

Theresa May's lonely weekend

Theresa May must be the loneliest and most angst-ridden political leader in the world right now. She is spending a lonely weekend contemplating the treachery and plotting of pretty well all her Cabinet, the humiliation imposed on her by her fellow EU leaders, the dread of knowing Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn might try to force through a Commons no-confidence vote on the government, and the total confusion about where the hell it's all going and whether she should resign. She won't resign because she is made of tougher stuff than that but this is the moment when the old adage about leadership being a lonely job is hitting her hardest. We know she will plough on in the hope that someone somewhere will come up with an acceptable solution to get rid of all her Brexit nightmares. But after more than 19 months no one bright enough has thought of an acceptable mechanism to resolve the Irish border issue for eternity. So I'm not sure where that magic trick is going to come from, certainly not from the EU negotiators. Do any other leaders in the world care enough about Theresa May to offer sympathy, help, perhaps a little friendship. Donald Trump has too many of his own problems and he doesn't want to be quoted as saying anything supportive of the "special relationship" premier (ho ho), Angela Merkel remains stony-faced and unrelenting, Emmanuel Macron is still cowering from the heat of the burning Paris streets, and all the rest of the EU seem to have given up with the British prime minister, and are probably just thankful they are not in her shoes, even her leopard spotty ones. So May is on her own, plus her husband of course. Looking ahead to this week she will have no time to prepare for a nice Christmas off. Her officials will be beavering away over Christmas and the New Year to try and conjure up an Irish border solution and she will no doubt be on the phone constantly to them and to her cabinet ministers. Well the ones she can trust not to leak anything! Corbyn doesn't seem to have a clue what's best for him and the Labour Party, so somehow I doubt he will challenge May before Christmas. But meanwhile a host of Tories who fancy their chances of succeeding May when she steps down before the next due election in 2022, will be plotting and planning their futures. Poor old Theresa. Not a smiley face anywhere.

Theresa May accused of being nebulous

Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission and a native of Luxembourg which is so small a country it would fit into a tiny section of Texas and not be noticed, accused Theresa May and her whole Brexit demands as "nebulous". I don't know which definition Juncker was thinking of when he made the remark, but here is a selection: muddled, confused, ambiguous, opaque, indefinite, hazy, ill-defined, muddy, unclear...You get the picture. Poor Theresa, she saw red when she heard that word and took on Juncker face to face. As the cameras watched her lips move, she definitely said to Juncker, "You called me nebulous." He later said he was calling the whole argument nebulous but he was lying in his well-formed teeth, he was referring to her because the whole Brexit deal is all about Theresa. I have to say, also, that Juncker has some alarmingly creepy tendencies. On camera he was seen flicking away the blond locks of some attractive woman standing in front of him. Yuuuuck!! And he's all hands, touching, caressing and smoothing down. Definitely creepy. If I was a woman with long blond hair I wouldn't want some Luxembourgian politician or any politician touching my hair like that. So, back to nebulous. It's a rude word in the context Of the Brexit drama and he knows that. He didn't need to be rude to Theresa and I noticed that as soon as she accused him of using the word to describe her he immediately put his hand on her arm as if to say, "There, there, dear, no need to get upset". Again, yuuuuck! Actually the British PM was pretty precise about what she wanted from the EU leaders but they just turned against her. So Juncker from Luxembourg, keep your hands off our prime minister and give her a little respect. But I don't think it will make a blind bit of difference to the Brexit story. As all the papers are saying today, her deal is dead. The idea of a second referendum is gathering momentum but. as I have said before, I doubt that will do anything but confuse the issue even further. That word "nebulous" is going to stick in Theresa's throat and may be it will encourage her to do something really bold to prove to the odious Juncker that she is not imprecise or wavering. Perhaps an amazing speech in which she denounces Juncker and all his cohorts and rouses the people of the United Kingdom to back her. A reincarnated Boadicea, fighting for our future, fighting for our dignity, fighting on the beaches and telling the EU, "For God's sake we're all on the same side, stop being so petty and vindictive and spiteful." If only she would and could. But it's not in her. She is no Maggie and she is definitely no Winston.

EU leaders with false bonhomie

If anything persuades Brexit doubters about their feelings for the EU the atrocious way in which they EU leaders treated Theresa May will be the final screw in their coffin. Full of smug bonhomie and promises to be helpful and nice and then in goes the knife once the television cameras are no longer around. Non, nein, nee, nao, nie, ingen!!! They all said they wouldn't help her at all but had only one message. "Go back to your Parliament and tell them to take the deal we have offered or go hang!" Talk about treachery. All smiles and lovey handshakes for the British Prime Minister for the cameras but totally false. Well it was 27 against one, so she never stood a chance. But if the EU leaders had actually said: "Look we promise that the Irish backstop issue will go away within two years." Mrs M might have been able to return to Parliament with something extra. But they didn't and she won't have a better deal to go back to MPs with and so she's finished, and so are we. Unless of course it's all a giant conspiracy between Theresa and the 27 leaders to persuade MPs and voters that the best and only solution is to stay in the EU. No, I don't think so. I don't believe in conspiracies as a general rule and if there was one and it came out, Theresa May would be literally thrown out of Number 10 Downing Street. The only other scenario is one put forward by David Davis, former Brexit Secretary, on BBC Question Time last night. He said, almost as if he knew something no one else did, that it was only in the next three months that the EU hierarchy would really get down to the negotiating business and that concessions could be extracted out of Brussels during this time so that the UK would leave on March 29 next year with a proper deal that everyone in Parliament and the country would like. I noticed the Green Party MP (the only one in the House of Commons), also sitting on the Question Time panel, mouthing "fantasy". I fear she is right. David Davis was in a frightfully jolly mood and didn't seem in the least bit disturbed when even David Dimbleby, doing his last presenting of the programme after 25 years, took the micky out of him, saying he was the Brexit joke. Davis just smiled and repeated his theory that the EU would give in eventually. Judging by the EU leaders' treatment of the British prime minister on Thursday, all they are working on right now is the relevant laws and regulations and planning necessary for a UK withdrawal without any deal at all. The hardest of hard Brexits. Was Davis worried about that? No, no, no. He quite likes the idea of what he called a "managed no deal". Whatever the hell that means. By the way if the government turns to Option C which is to hold another referendum I can guarantee it will go the wrong way, again. But this time even more people will vote to leave the EU with or without a deal because of those smug faces in Brussels on Thursday. The false bonhomie.

Britain is just a "middling power" with a prime minister to match, says US journalist.

Ryan Heath, political editor of the American newspaper Politico, has written a scathing and belittling and scornful article about the United Kingdom, its current status in the world, Theresa May's shrinking leadership and the delusion we Brits apparently all have which is that we are citizens of a still great top-scale nation. He finds the UK and Brexit boring and wonders why we just don't accept we're a piddly little country with no influence and no right to stand up for ourselves against the big boys on the planet, the US and European Union being two of them. Ha!! American journalists love doing to this to good old England. It's a kind of sport. If there are a dozen knife crimes in London, the US journos say the capital is filled with knife-wielding maniacs and it's not safe to walk the streets. If there is a misty day, they say London is hit by smog (not since the early 50s actually). Brexit has given American journalists and columnists a treasure trove of available cliches and bold but unfair judgements. Ryan Heath, whom I don't know from Adam, has managed to put together every single damning cliche he could think of and rather pompously thrown us into the dustbin of history where, apparently we belong. Well Rule Britannia I say. I know we're not the British Empire any more. In fact Mr Heath, every Briton living in this island knows we no longer have an empire and none of us want it back. So you can forget that cliche. British Empire is for Hollywood and Netflix. We don't care about the empire days. As for the other cliche that, lacking an empire and a meaning to exist we adopted the European Union, that is such a silly argument. We opted for the EU because, rightly in my view, we felt that Europe for us was the way forward, the only intelligent way forward and we have been a mostly enthusiastic member since the 1970s. Then after an historically suicidal and cowardly decision by David Cameron the good British people decided by a small majority that they wanted to leave the EU because the government asked them whether they wanted to stay in or get the hell out. Just under 52 per cent decided after eating fried eggs for breakfast and checking on the latest football results that, what-the-hell, they might as well as leave and stick two fingers up to that toffy-nosed git running the EU in Brussels (sorry Mr Juncker). It's as simple as that. Ok, there were issues too, like immigration and stupid EU laws and regulations and waste waste waste. But basically decisions by individual votes were taken without a helluva thought and here we are today! But that doesn't make us pathetic little whingers as Mr Heath would like to think, no longer deserving a place at the top table or any table come to that. We haven't been a great power for decades, just a middle-ranking power though sometimes, as they say, punching above our weight but still effective in many ways. Brexit and Theresa May are the big headlines across the United States today, as they are in the UK. So, small we may be, as Mr Heath kindly puts it, but everyone wants to know about our great political drama. Theresa May is no Maggie Thatcher but she is fighting for survival - of this country and herself and her government. That's a properly worthy cause and should not be belittled by an ignorant cliche-ridden political journalist across the water. By the way, we also have a monarchy and a magnificent Queen. Don't make me start on your current leader Mr Heath!

It's going to be the Trump and Pelosi show

I can see a mighty war between Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi. This woman has the necessary fighting spirit to take on the president. She's a tough cookie and judging by her verbal confrontation with Trump in the Oval Office yesterday, she looks like she is going to enjoy the battle. Reading the reports of remarks she made later to her fellow Democrats it is clear she can't stand Trump, making a withering comment about his wall obsession, saying it was a "manhood" thing. Trump is going to find it increasingly difficult to be nice to Pelosi. When her name went to the top of the list for Speaker, the president actually said he would help her and looked forward to working with her to get laws passed in the House. That hint of cooperation has now gone out of the window. I bet Trump goes to bed at night swearing blue murder about "that woman". This rapidly deteriorating relationship between Trump and the next Speaker of the House - assuming she gets the votes she needs - bodes ill for the president's next chief of staff. Whoever it is, replacing the tired-looking General John Kelly at the end of this month, he or she will have the task of dealing with Congress and making sweet music with Pelosi. The chief of staff job for a man like Trump has always been the toughest in Washington but with Pelosi and the Democrats taking control of the House next month, it will be even more nightmarish a role. No wonder Nick Ayers, Vice President Mike Pence's chief of staff, turned it down and said he wanted to go back to Georgia where he comes from. The next man or woman for the job should have a long chat with General Kelly. He looks truly beat up. Trying to mastermind a president who is as unpredictable as a bull elephant in a china shop has put years on him. But Nikki Haley, outgoing US ambassador to the United Nations, who both survived and flourished under Trump's tutelage, has pointed out in a TV interview that the president's unpredictability actually worked in her favour when she was dealing with her counterparts at the UN. She may be right. Unpredictability in this dangerous world can be a strong deterrent and keeps opponents on their toes. But there will be nothing unpredictable about the relationship between Trump and Pelosi. If Trump shouts at her she will give the same back. The next chief of staff will just have to put his hands over his ears.

Donald Trump plays to the gallery

Donald Trump grabbed the limelight in a confrontation with two Democrat leaders and threatened to shut down the government today unless he got his $5 billion to start building a border wall. This was Nancy Pelosi's first on-camera set-to with the president as she prepares to take over as Speaker in the House of Representatives next month. Trump did his hard-ball act, literally taunting Pelosi with his threat to bring government to a halt. But she was having none of it, giving Trump an icy response. Reporters watched in astonishment as Trump waved his arms and became increasingly heated. With control of the House being taken over by the Democrats in January, this little bunfight between the president and the two leading Democrat politicians - the other one was Senator Chuck Schumer, Minority Leader of the Senate - has given us an alarming insight into how Trump's relationship with the Democrats is going to go over the next two years. He is never going to give up his border wall because he promised he would build one during his presidential election campaign. Pelosi is never going to cooperate. So it's a political logjam. Just like it was when Obama was in power and he faced recalcitrant Republicans. There's another confrontation in the wind. Trump told all his cabinet members to cut back on their budget for 2020 by five per cent to help reduce the deficit. But Jim Mattis over at the Pentagon was so taken aback he rushed to the White House and explained to the president why cutting the defence budget down to $700 billion in 2020 would set back his plans to boost the size of the armed services and buy lots more lovely weaponry. Trump was easily persuaded and then went mad, presumably because he didn't have his budget management adviser with him. He apparently told Mattis not only that he could keep his five per cent but then increased the overall budget for 2020 to $750 billion, a staggering increase of $50 billion, more than enough to meet the defence secretary's dreams. Pelosi I'm sure will object. It seems highly unlikely that Mattis will get $750 billion. But perhaps Trump was playing a high stakes game, knowing the Democrats would never countenance such a steep rise for the Pentagon, and just putting any old figure out there. If so, that's a bit tough for Mattis. Mind you, if Mattis were to get $750 billion in 2020, Trump would probably tell him to use his largesse to pay for the border wall.

Theresa May bows to the inevitable

You can take obstinacy so far, then it looks crazy. That has happened to Theresa May this afternoon. All day yesterday she and her spokespeople and ministers were saying that there was absolutely no way the prime minister was going to delay the historic vote on her Brexit deal. No No No. The vote due tomorrow (Tuesday) was going to take place whatever anyone said to the contrary. Until of course Mrs M actually stood up in Parliament and told MPs that she had decided to delay the vote because it was quite clear that if it went ahead she was going to lose big time. Well, that's what all her advisers, including her defence secretary, Gavin Williamson, had been saying for days. Delay delay delay, Prime Minister. But the Theresa obstinacy came into full play. She wanted the vote to happen because somewhere in her head she must have imagined that all the naughty MPs who were going to throw out her Brexit deal would suddenly change their mind. Her Commons spies told her otherwise. Her spies of course are the Whips, the delightfully named eyes and ears for Downing Street in Parliament. They knew that the numbers didn't add up to victory for Theresa, just total defeat. So, very sensibly, she backed down. The trouble is it doesn't look good, does it, for the prime minister of this once-great country to be seen to be cowering under the onslaught of her opponents. Maggie Thatcher, famously/infamously once said: "This lady is not for turning." A classic line which reminded the whole country that the Iron Lady was made of steel through and through, no matter what the political opponents were demanding. It caused her downfall in the end. But Theresa has now shown she IS for turning when confronting defeat. She did the right thing, but it's still a humiliating moment for a prime minister who seems to have few political friends around her. Everyone is scheming and it's not a pretty sight.

No one has a clue what will happen with Brexit!!

Every possible outcome, every possible option, ABCEDF, every possible disaster has been pored over, studied in infinite detail and interpreted. Yet still no one, not even the most intimately involved, knows what is going to happen next week when the Brexit debate comes to a vote in the House of Commons on Tuesday. Theresa May will lose seems to be the only accepted intelligence. But will she have to resign immediately because she no longer has the authority, moral or otherwise, to represent the government and the country as the prime minister, having failed to deliver what has take her 19 months of hard negotiating with the EU "partners" across the Channel. Her Brexit deal, a sort of soft/slightly hard/semi-shackling arrangement, now appears dead in the water. Well, we'll see. If she is heavily defeated by, say 100-200 votes, can she really carry on as prime minister? I think she thinks she can. I think she is so determined to finish the job whatever the pain and humiliation for her, that she will battle on. In fact she will lock the front door of Number 10 Downing Street and refuse to let any leadership challengers in. There is one small tiny hope for her. If she can get this notorious Northern Ireland "backstop" linked to a finite timetable, she might just get the votes she needs. In other words if in the next 24-36 hours she can persuade the EU negotiators and leaders to promise in writing that if there has to be a customs union throughout the UK to prevent any sort of hard border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic it will last no longer than two years, it could persuade the doubters and opponents and ditherers to sign up. At present the customs union agreement could go on for ever if there is no long-term EU/UK trade deal. That is unacceptable to nearly everyone. So all the EU has to say is, "Ok, UK Parliament, vote yes for the Brexit deal and we will guarantee that the UK customs union arrangement will be scrapped by 2022, whatever happens." In other words, let's be positive about signing a for-ever trade relationship, and let's all get a life. I don't know whether the EU is in the mood to be nice to Theresa May. But the hard-faced negotiators must know this for sure: if they don't agree, May will probably fall and before you know where you are you will be dealing with Jeremy Corbyn. Good luck with that, and God help us all.

General John Kelly to go, maybe possibly.

BREAKING NEWS: John Kelly IS leaving the White House, says Trump. The enforced departure of General John Kelly as chief of staff in the White House has been predicted so many times that it is possibly unwise to give too much credence to the latest rumours and speculation in Washington. But those supposedly in the know are saying that this time Kelly really will go. Trump is certainly in a change-over mood. He has nominated a new attorney general, William Barr, an old hand, Heather Nauert as ambassador to the United Nations, an old Fox News hand (there's a surprise!), and General Mark Milley as the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, succeeding General Joe Dunford who by the time he retires next summer will have served in that post for four years. Kelly, everyone says, will be next in Trump's shake-up. What intrigues me is that Trump rules by personality, instinct and self-belief. He doesn't like to be told what to do by anyone. Yet retired four-star Marine Corps General John Kelly has spent every day trying to restrain Trump. If Trump wanted to go in one direction, Kelly would point out that it was neither legal nor sensible. According to some reports, Kelly's restraining advice has put back Trump's national security and trade agenda by up to a year, simply by telling the president he shouldn't do what he wanted to do. Trump clearly listened to him. Why? What made Trump suddenly think that Kelly knew more about a certain issue than he did? It just doesn't sound like the Trump we know. Remember he once said that he knew more about intelligence matters than the whole intelligence community. So perhaps the rumours are true. Trump can't take any more of the sensible, practical General Kelly and will be looking for someone with better political and Trump-like instincts. Which is why Nick Ayers, currently chief of staff to Mike Pence, vice president, is the hot choice. He's good at the political game and has better contacts in Congress. But you never know with Trump. Most in-the-know people in Washington said not that long ago that Trump had rejected the idea of nominating Heather Nauert, State Department spokesperson, as UN ambassador to replace superstar Nikki Haley who is going to spend more time with her family (I think). Yet Nauert IS the Trump choice. Expect more Trump announcements over the next few days. One man sure of his job is Mike Pompeo because Trump keeps on praising him. And tearing apart Pompeo's predecessor at State, Rex Tillerson. Trump very kindly tweeted that Tillerson was "dumb as a rock and lazy as hell". Oh my God, don't get the wrong side of this president. He always says what he really thinks!!

France is heading for a grassroots revolution

Burning cars and shops and restaurants, Molotov cocktails, armed protesters, police in riot gear. This is Paris today!! And it could get worse this weekend. It is an historic fact that within the French soul there is a revolutionary spirit, an anarchic "ingredient de caractere" which lies dormant until something sparks a chemical reaction. President Macron is one of many French leaders who have tried to reform the country, change the dominant power of the trades unions and bring sense and sensibility to the economy. All previous presidents who tried failed dismally because they came up against that rock-solid refusal to change. Past presidents have backed down in the face of nationwide protests and the blocking of major motorway routes into Paris with articulated lorries or tractors or combine harvesters. When Macron came to power, everyone thought it would be different. He had emerged from nowhere, a new political force, young and dashing and visionary and the leader of a party he created from which he had to extract suitable candidates for government. But, inevitably, he has had to confront the very same opposition to change which destroyed his predecessors. His five per cent hike on fuel prices, part of his attempt to reduce France's deficit and introduce carbon restrictions, was the litmus test for his political policies. But the working people of France erupted and, infiltrated by violent extremists, began burning the streets of Paris. Even damaging the iconic Arc de Triomphe at the top end of the Champs-Elysees. Macron backed down, something he said he would never do. First he got his prime minister to suspend the five per cent fuel price increase and then he abandoned it altogether. But the trouble with that is that the violent demonstrators, those who want to bring down the government - the real hardened revolutionary anarchists - have been given hope. If they can force Macron to back down over fuel prices what more concessions can they extract from the president? Showing weakness in the face of violence always leads to more violence. The French police will be out in force this weekend in the capital because they fear that Paris will be besieged by extremist demonstrators determined to make the city burn. It is sad and tragic and terrifying for everyone in one of the most beautiful cities in Europe.

President George H.W Bush's Mutla Ridge legacy

Much has been written about the moderate, kind and fair presidency of George H.W Bush, following his death and funeral. My personal and work-related memory is the decision he made to halt the slaughter of evacuating Iraqi troops from Kuwait after the 100 hours of war to liberate the Gulf state. The Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait City by both military and civilians and hordes of vehicles, many of them packed with looted goods, was heading up towards Mutla Ridge on what became known as the highway of death leading to the Iraqi border. The escaping Iraqis were caught in a massive traffic jam and as they ground to a halt, the US Air Force flew overhead and pounded them with bombs. At the far end, close to Mutla Ridge, US Army Abrams battle tanks blocked the route. The Iraqis were caught in a trap and hundreds of them died, their bodies burning to blackened corpses. Seen on television it was a gruesome horrific apocalyptic sight. It was enough for President Bush. He said Kuwait had been liberated, so the job was done, he had no desire to pursue the Iraqi military all the way to Baghdad, killing in a turkey shoot all the way. It was a moment of great magnanimity. Many US and coalition commanders wanted to keep going and take the fight to Baghdad to make sure Saddam Hussein's Republican Guards were destroyed for ever. But Bush said no, leaving it to his son, George W, to do the Baghdad bit 12 years later. And look where that left us?! I went to Kuwait a few days after Bush's ending of the war and drove up the highway of death. Most of the bodies had been removed but every vehicle was still there, the biggest burnt-out traffic jam in history. It was a horrendous sight. I don't think anyone knows for sure how many Iraqis died in the slaughter! It was impossible to count. War is terrible but it IS possible for those at the top to show magnanimity. George H.W Bush did just that and it was unquestionably the honourable and right thing to have done.

Outrageous case of Spanish girl raped by five thugs

There are times when you read a story in the news and shudder with outrage and disgust. Such is the case with the 18-year-old girl who was grabbed by five thugs in Pamplona, the famous bull-running city, forced into a basement and raped. At their trial the judge ruled it wasn't rape because there was no violence or intimidation and so they then faced a lesser charge of sexual abuse. The judge's ruling has now been upheld by the Spanish appeals court which made the following judgement: being seized by five men and taken into a basement to be raped did not necessarily indicate there was intimidation even though it was five men against one girl. And there was "no violence" involved. Apparently in the view of the Appeals Court judges who I assume learnt their profession from the manuals of the Spanish Inquisition, the act of sex against the will of the victim does not involve violence. According to the police report she kept her eyes closed throughout her ordeal. The judges interpreted that as "passive" suffering, not terrified suffering. It is beyond belief that a member of the European community can have a legal system which allows five men to take a girl off the streets and rape her in a basement and judge the incident to be sexual abuse rather than a gross example of rape. The Spanish Supreme Court will now hear the case. I know we are about to leave the European Union - or may be not - but one of the criteria for allowing a country to join the EU is that it must guarantee the same moral and human rights values as set down in the original European charter. The fact that Spanish men and women have been protesting at the outrageous court judgment in the case of this poor girl shows that Spain's legal system is way way behind the accepted level of decency, wisdom and justice.

Why is everyone so apocalyptic about Brexit?

Yet another senior figure in the Brexit debate has expressed the apocalyptic view of Britain's departure from the EU under the Theresa May plan. Lord King, who was in charge of the Bank of England for ten years up to 2013, has joined those who say that the May Brexit solution is a total disaster and will ruin this country. He is actually a Leaver, so presumably he wants as hard a Brexit withdrawal as possible, leaving the single market, the customs union and anything else that smells of EU bureaucracy. All fine and good but does this venerable banker really believe that he knows better than the government how to negotiate the perfect deal with the EU? For a start, there is no such thing as a perfect deal, there have to be compromises but Lord King doesn't like any of them. I recall this gentleman wasn't exactly the fount of all wisdom when he was governor of the Bank of England. In fact he was governor when the financial crash occurred in 2008. How about that for a legacy? The whole trouble with the Brexit debate is that influential people on ether side who are supposed to sway us simple folk one way or the other, have always given us the apocalyptic future we face if we don't do what he or she thinks is best for the country. Lord King is now one of these. His only contribution is to say that the Theresa May government has been totally irresponsible and has tied Britain to the EU and all it stands for for an indefinite period without having any say in what laws and/or regulations are passed, and paying $39 billion for the privilege. Well that sounds like a reasonable argument for opposing May's Brexit. But what is his alternative argument? He doesn't have one. His only battle plan is to knock Theresa May and tell anyone who is interested in the "wisdom" of an old banker that the UK is facing a future of gloom and doom and economic disaster. Well thank you Mr Banker, there is enough to be depressed about in this world. Isn't it time we all started thinking optimistically about the future and actually laid out the positives of pulling out of Europe? I never wanted to leave the EU but since that is the way we're going, let's grab what we can and make May's Brexit deal work in our favour and the country's favour. No more apocalypse please. The best news has come from a lawyer giving advice to the European Court of Justice. He says it will be perfectly ok, legally, for the whole Brexit thing to be scrapped and for us all to go back to Square One. Hurray!!!

Putin is a fan of Donald Trump

Sometimes a throwaway line says a helluva lot. Vladimir Putin just about managed to have a sort of chat with Trump before or during or after the G20 banquet in Buenos Aires. The previously planned proper session between the two leaders was scrapped by Trump because of Putin's action against the Ukrainian Navy off Crimea. So it was a question of Putin engineering to bump into Trump, or perhaps the other way around. They had a brief chat about the incident involving the Ukrainian vessels and arrested crew and that was it. But afterwards, Putin was asked by reporters whether Trump had seemed "wary" about talking to him. Putin wonderfully replied: "I don't think Trump is wary of anything." He then added: "He is a man of character, a very experienced man. He is a grown up." Well well. I'm sure Trump will be delighted with that assessment. There are a quite a few of America's closest allies who might not agree with that description, although it is certainly true to say that Donald Trump is a character. But for a man who thinks burning more and more coal is a good idea, that climate change is a hoax, and that he knows more about most things than the whole US intelligence community, it's quite difficult to see why Putin thinks of him as such a grown up. There are very few people on this planet who do not believe that climate change is dangerously changing the health of the globe for our children and grandchildren. But I'm sure Robert Mueller will take Putin's remark and add it to the long list of why he believes there may have been some sort of collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow in the 2016 presidential election campaign. We don't know what Mueller is going to come up with but from all the leaks and whispers it does look as if he is doing his very best to put the president at the top of his Wanted List.

Beware who you shake hands with!

Donald Trump shook his hand. Theresa May shook his hand but tried to look grim. Vladimir Putin gave him a high five and a cheery hail-brother-well-met grin. Everyone at the G20 summit in Buenos Aires was clearly wondering and worrying about what to do if they came anywhere near Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia. Putin was just outrageous. He couldn't care less that a leader of a country as rich as Saudi Arabia is suspected of ordering the murder of a Saudi dissident journalist. Bodies of Putin opponents, including investigative journalists, have turned up in dark alleys in Moscow, so the killing of an MBS critic in Istanbul probably came as no surprise to the Russian leader. Anyway, he was very happy to give MBS the full welcome in Buenos Aires which must have been painfully embarrassing to everyone else in the vicinity. As for Trump and May, Trump gave what looked like quite a warm handshake, while Theresa May tried desperately to make it look like she was shaking hands with a lump of wood. Nevertheless, she shook his hand. She could have ignored him or chatted briefly without shaking his hand. That, clearly, would have been viewed in Riyadh as a diplomatic snub, but she decided against it, presumably on the advice of her foreign secretary. If no one else among the G20 leaders shook his hand, three out of 19 was probably considered not bad by the Saudi leader. At least he wasn't arrested by the Argentine police. For that, Riyadh will be relieved. But the Khashoggi murder is not going to be swept under the carpet. I suspect more and more details are going to slowly emerge, and may be at some point in the future, Trump and May - but not Putin - will be forced to think twice before shaking the hand of the beaming Crown Prince.