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.

Trump wants to cut defence spending!! Surely some mistake.

With all the Trumpery goings-on one bizarre decision by the president has slipped through without major fanfare. He actually wants to CUT the Pentagon's future budget. Having blasted from his soap box that he planned to rebuild America's armed forces and make them better and bigger, he has told the Pentagon chief Jim Mattis that he wants a cut of $33 billion in his planned spending for fiscal year 2020 - the year of the presidential election!! He is suddenly worried about the steeply rising national deficit and wants all government departments, including the Pentagon, to cut expenditure by five per cent. For the Defence Department that means reducing planned expenditure in 2020 from $733 billion to $700 billion. That's a lot of jobs and equipment and training and maintenance and readiness that's going to be negatively affected. It's back to the bad old ways, salami-slicing cuts to the defence budget to meet deficit problems. Obama was a nightmare with his constant cutting, forcing the Pentagon to reduce the size of the individual forces by thousands of troops. When Trump became president he vowed to change all that and gave the Pentagon a big boost in spending last year, with substantial pay rises for service personnel. But reality has set in. I can see big battles ahead in Congress and trouble for Trump as he gets closer to 2020, as if he hasn't got enough problems on his plate over the next two years. Slashing defence spending in the very year he is trying to be reelected for a second term will be a gift for the Democrat rivals, even though they would probably approve cuts in the military. But the fact is in this dangerous world where technology is moving at such a fast speed, it is perilous to start cutting back on key programmes such as hypersonic weapons, cyber warfare, and training, training, training. China will be very happy to see the Pentagon cutting back. So will Putin.

In this era of lying who ever knows who is telling the truth?

Michael Cohen, erstwhile personal lawyer for Trump, is the latest prominent figure in Washington to admit he had lied to Congress about Trump's business dealings but is now telling the truth to Robert Mueller, special counsel investigating allegations of collusion between the president's campaign team and Moscow. Reacting to the latest development, Trump says Cohen is lying about lying which presumably means that in Trump's view, Cohen was telling the truth when he appeared before Congress about his business dealings - notably the plan to build a Trump Tower in Moscow when he dismissed any idea that Trump was still talking to the Russians about the monster tower block plan when he was campaigning to enter the White House. Which obviously he shouldn't have been doing. Now Cohen is saying that actually Trump WAS still cosying up to the Russian authorities to build a tower in between campaigning to become president. Cohen says he was lying then but telling the truth now. Trump says Cohen is lying now and telling the truth then!! This is true Alice in Wonderland fantasy stuff. It's impossible to know whether Cohen has ever told the truth about Trump but the fact is he is in trouble with the law and as a result is telling that nice Mr Mueller all kinds of things which I'm sure the former FBI director is lapping up and putting into his huge book of scandals which at some point between now and 2020 he will publish as a best seller and then we can all make up our minds whether it's full of lies or truths, fact or fiction. Trump has already written the speech he will make when the Mueller report is completed. Something on the lines of, "This is all made up, a conspiracy by the Democrat-loving special counsel and his Democrat-loving team of lawyers. The witch hunt is over and I was right all along. The truth is there was no collusion. " But when people say "the truth is" these days, we can't ever again be sure that there is a truth. Cohen said he was speaking the truth to Congress. Now he says he was lying. Why should we believe anything he says?

Crown Prince bin Salman better watch out in Argentina

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has arrived in Buenos Aires and so far hasn't been arrested. Buenos Aires is hosting the G20 summit and Saudi Arabia is represented. But is MBS taking a calculated risk that the Argentinians wouldn't dare to arrest the most senior Saudi delegate and hold him in detention on the grounds that he is suspected of having a journalist murdered? The Khashoggi case will be like a Damocles sword above his head when the G20 summit starts on Friday. But he's probably safe from being manacled by the Argentine police. By no coincidence whatsoever, Mike Pompeo, US Secretary of State, has declared today that there is no direct (intelligence) reporting that shows MBS ordered the killing of Jamal Khashoggi. In other words, of all the intelligence that has landed on Pompeo's desk - and he sees everything - there is no transcript of a telephone conversation or an email or text which says: "Hello, this is MBS here, I order you to kill that ....Khashoggi." Well, of course, even if he did order it he wouldn't have been so careless as to put it in writing let alone in a telephone call. So I'm sure Pompeo is being truthful. But he also knows that his former colleagues in the CIA made the broad assessment that in Saudi Arabia, a decision to send a team of assassins to grab Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and strangle him and dispose of his body could not have been made without the say-so of MBS. Ergo, MBS must have authorised the killing. But that's not the same as having a piece of damning intelligence in your hand - or Pompeo's hand - that points the finger directly and unequivocally at the crown prince. So, he's probably safe in Buenos Aires. But that doesn't mean everyone is going to go rushing up to shake his hand. Those who do will be noted!

Trump pulls rug from under Theresa May, but is he right?

Every day gets worse and worse for Theresa May and her government. The latest blow comes from Washington where President Trump kindly informed the world that the great Brexit deal was good for the EU - ie bad for the UK - and that the US will not be able to forge new trade deals with Britain as a result. One of the principle reasons for leaving the EU was for Britain to be able to negotiate trade deals independently around the world, including and especially with the US, without being encumbered by EU trade regulations. Theresa May insists this is still the situation if Parliament votes in favour of her Brexit deal. But from my reading of the small print, it may be true EVENTUALLY but definitely not for about two years after we leave the EU on March 29 next year and probably for several more years after that. So I'm afraid to say that Trump is right, and however 10 Downing Street tries to explain it away, what he said ties in with this small print. The UK will NOT be able to forge a special UK/US trade agreement until AFTER the UK government agrees a trade relationship with the EU, and in the meantime - two years, three years, four years, five years, who knows - we Brits will be subject to EU regulations without having any say in how they might be improved, changed or strengthened. We in the UK will not have a voice in decision-making in Brussels and Strasbourg from May 29 2019. Downing Street says Trump is wrong and as proof has revealed that British and American trade negotiators have already met five times to begin putting an agreement together. But that's disingenuous. Whatever decisions they come to cannot be implemented until after the UK has finally extricated itself from the rules and regulations and restrictions of the EU. 2023-2025 maybe?! Obviously what Trump said doesn't help Theresa May in her almost impossible task of selling her Brexit deal. But it's better to be truthful than claim we're about to sign a wonderful lucrative trade deal with the US. Trump is also following a precedent set by his predecessor, Barack Obama who informed reporters at a press conference in London in April 2016 that the UK would be "at the back of the queue" for trade deals with the US if it left the EU. He probably thought he was being helpful to David Cameron, then prime minister. His remark was made two months before the UK referendum was held on whether to remain in or leave the EU. So, basically, Trump said the same thing: the UK will now be at the back of the queue for trade deals with the US. The answer? Stay in the EU and benefit from the US/EU trade agreement which will one day be signed. But that means throwing Brexit down the drain and pleading with the EU for the UK to come back into the fold. I fear that option is disappearing fast.

What are the odds of Theresa May's Brexit deal being passed by Parliament?

Every newspaper every day tells us that Theresa May's Brexit deal, now approved by the rest of the EU governments, is never going to get through Parliament next month. Based on the available figures - which MP is going to vote which way - these articles seem to be right. If the whole of the Labour contingent in the Commons votes No, 20-30 Conservatives vote No, the Democratic Unionist Party votes No, and the Scottish Nationalists vote No, the Brexit deal will fall onto the scrapheap. But with two weeks to go before the vote,that gives a lot of time for genuinely worried MPs of whatever persuasion, to listen to their constituencies and perhaps come to a different decision than the one they hold right now. But will it be enough to change the voting numbers? Realists will say the answer to that is, surely not. Theresa May and 10 Downing Street will have come to the same conclusion. So does that mean we are doomed to a no-deal scenario? Not necessarily. The British are brilliant at fudges. Some people call it compromise. But actually we could end up with a fudge which means an under-the-counter deal with her opponents. Perhaps Theresa May could say to her critics, "Look, let's sign this deal to get the EU off our backs and cheer up the voters before Christmas, but I promise, when we get down to the nitty-gritty negotiations about trading with the EU - (the really hard part of exiting the EU) - and discuss timetables for transition and scrapping the customs union, if I haven't got a deal within, say, nine months, which everyone is happy about, then I will resign and call a general election, but let's first at least have a withdrawal arrangement, so we have a foundation upon which to build the future relationship with the EU." Now I have no idea whether Mrs May is considering such a fudge or whether, even if she is, Jeremy Corbyn, Labour, and Nicola Sturgeon, Scots Nats, and Arlene Foster, DUP, would go along with it. They probably wouldn't. But if an election is promised in nine months to a year, perhaps Corbyn might be tempted? In any event, Mrs May is about to embark on a nationwide tour to win support for her Brexit deal from the voters, presumably in the hope that they will persuade their MPs to back it. I think there is no question that most voters are by now so tired of the Brexit debate that they will do anything to get the politicians to shut up and get it done. This is what the prime minister is hoping anyway. It's a gamble but she might as well go for it, because it could work.

Trump doesn't want to go to see American troops in war zones

In a startling break with tradition, Donald Trump is showing no interest or enthusiasm about going to visit American troops in war zones, specifically Iraq and Afghanistan. Round about this time of year previous US presidents have started to feel they should go and speak to the troops before Christmas to tell them how wonderful they are and how everyone back home is thinking of them and praying for them. Now obviously for security reasons there is not going to be any announcement about a future visit. But Trump has been in office for nearly two years and he hasn't once flown into a war zone. Such trips are a nightmare for the military and for the Secret Service. But Trump's predecessors have all done it, and the troops have always appreciated such visits because it makes them feel they are not alone and forgotten. If the commander-in-chief bothers to take the time to visit, whoever it is, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Trump, the troops appreciate it. However, it's possible that being such a controversial outspoken president his Secret Service detail just won't recommend it. After all, they apparently prevented Trump from visiting an American war cemetery in France at the 100th anniversary of the end of the First World War because the weather was too awful for his helicopter and they didn't want him going by limousine. That was weather, not terrorism. Now there is talk of Mike Pence, the vice president going to Iraq and/or Afghanistan in his place. But I'm sorry, that is not the same as the commander-in-chief getting his hands dirty. Whatever the security concerns, Trump should go. I suspect he will, although word will get about in Washington that he is not going. Probably the Mike Pence rumour is just a cover.

Who is leading the glamour stakes to take on Trump in 2020?

Predicting who might be chosen to be the Democratic candidate to challenge Trump for the presidency in 2020 is a mug's game, with two years to go. However, with a whole bunch of potential names now moving into the speculation phase of the presidential race, I think it's time to look at who are on the short list in the glamour stakes. Who has the Hollywood potential for throwing Trump out of office. A few months ago I would have said that Trump was almost a dead cert for winning a second term of office. But his popularity ratings are very poor, he has angered a lot of people by refusing to accept the CIA's belief that the murder of Jamal Khashoggi was authorised by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (who has denied all prior knowledge of the assassination plot), he is threatening to shut down the government if he doesn't get money from Congress to build his border wall and he is having a very public spat with the chief justice of the US Supreme Court over lower courts' judgments against the president's asylum policies. All in all, the Trump brand is beginning to look like his famous golf courses, full of holes, bunkers and heavy rough. So it's timely I think to peek at the Democrats who might have gold dust on their shoulders. This is not an intellectual exercise, it's based on good looks, nice hair, shiney teeth and that indefinable star quality. Here are my choices: Kamala Harris, 54, California senator, lawyer, Julia Roberts-like smile, big teeth; Tulsi Gabbard, 37, Hawaii Representative, gorgeous looks, a major in the army national guard and a fantastic name; Beto O'Rourke, 46, Texas Representative, celebrities love him, and with a name like Beto he has to be given a chance; Steve Bullock, 52, governor of Montana, very nice hairdresser's hair; Andrew Cuomo, 60, Big Cheese governor of New York with Mafioso looks; Jay Inslee, 67, governor of Washington state who has that hard slightly scary stare which could be seen as tough-cool; Martin O'Malley, 55, governor of Maryland, who looks healthy and fit, obviously eats his five fruit and veg pieces every day; and Julian Castro, former secretary of housing and urban development under Obama, super cool and articulate dude and an American President Castro would be to die for. All the rest have marks against them. For example: Hillary Clinton, oh please not again, Joe Biden, nice guy but Trump would eat him for breakfast, Bernie Sanders, looks too old and tired and dishevelled, John Kerry, great height and hair but, like Biden, would be eaten alive by the Trump machine, Elizabeth Warren, too worthy and too boring, and Michael Bloomberg, far too rich. So after that comprehensive study of the most likely candidates from the Democratic Party to challenge Trump, my choice on glamour stakes alone would be Julian Castro. You read it here first!

Why Saudi Arabia is so important apart from oil and arms

Congress is getting all upset about Trump's decision to carry on working with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman whether he authorised the killing of Jamal Khashoggi or not. But Jim Mattis, US Defence Secretary, ever a realist, has astutely given his own view of the reason for sticking with the Saudi royal family, despite the brutal and gruesome murder - all on tape - of the Saudi dissident journalist. Chatting to my old friends and colleagues in the Pentagon press corps, Mattis said it was a fact of life that US presidents don't have the freedom to work with "unblemished partners". Wonderful word to select from the lexicon of available adjectives to describe someone suspected of ordering the death of a nuisance journalist. But he is right of course. The Saudi regime is not the only one to have allegedly ordered murders of opponents and yet still shake hands with the president of the United States. The leaders of Russia, China, North Korea and The Philippines just to mention a few. If there were absolute proof that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) authorised the killing, that might make it trickier for Trump to shake his hand the next time they meet. But the way things have worked out so far, I doubt this will ever happen even if one of the team of assassins claims in his trial that he was only carrying out orders from above - and names MBS. That in itself will still not be proof because MBS, and no doubt the Saudi prosecutor involved, will dismiss it as hearsay. Lawyers love to say that. The CIA clearly doesn't have absolute proof because their leaked assessment following an investigation of all the intelligence tidbits referred to their analysis of all the available material, not prima facie evidence. And even if they find the "silver bullet" that points to MBS's guilt, Trump will put it into some sort of context that makes it sound more like fantasy than fact. After Mattis referred to America's blemished partners, he spoke at length about the role the Saudis are playing in attempting to bring the war in Yemen to an end, in which of course they are a major bombing protagonist, and also in facilitating negotiations between the US and the Taliban to bring the war in Afghanistan to a close. If Trump had pulled the plug on US/Saudi relations over the murder of Khashoggi, at stake would not only be all those fat defence contracts and oil deals but also the vital strategic partnership for meeting all the challenges in the Middle East and Iran and in countering international terrorism. I don't think either Barack Obama or George W Bush or Bill Clinton would have come to a different conclusion than the one Trump made. It's not moral or honourable or in line with western values - something the US usually underlines in terms of its foreign policy - but if Mattis says the US has no choice but to continue dealing with unsavoury characters (my words, not his), then that's the way it is!

Will Brussels give Theresa May an extra cherry to pick?

It's now in the interests of the whole European Union to hang on to Theresa May and her Brexit "deal" and give her one or may be two little extra concessions to take home to London to appease the rebelling Brexiteers. If she can return from her trip to Brussels today with something else to sweeten the draft deal she might just make it through Parliament and get the vote she and the country need. The EU negotiators would be crazy not to offer another concession because it's not in the interests of the EU or the UK if it all breaks down and we leave the EU with a no-deal. That would spell disaster for everyone. So, basically, she has to persuade the EU bosses to give up all thought of any kind of border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic and to state categorically that Northern Ireland is a member of the United Kingdom full stop. If there is no acceptable language for the Ireland issue, then the Democratic Unionist Party will not vote for May and the government could fall. Surely, with all the brainpower around on either side of the Channel, it must be possible to put the right words together and in the right order to appease/please the DUP and the Brexiteer nutters. I doubt anything will appease Jacob Rees-Mogg (Squeezy-Mop) who seems determined to oust Theresa May one way or the other. I'm not sure whether the EU has sufficient imagination or magnanimity to give Theresa May a break, but if they don't, the whole house of cards could collapse. So come on, Michel Barnier and Jean-Claude Juncker, get out your magic wand and send our prime minister home with a real proper everyone-will-like agreement.

Does anyone like or trust anyone in Washington?

The political atmosphere in Washington is so febrile, with investigations into this and that going on every day as the two parties line up for battles ahead, one can only say, thank God for Thanksgiving Day. At least there will be one day without abuse and insults and egomaniacs strutting their stuff. The Democrats want Ivanka Trump to be investigated for using her private emails for government business, they also want Matthew Whitaker, the new acting attorney general, to be investigated over his contacts with the White House, Trump wants everyone investigated, especially Hillary Clinton, Melania Trump insisted on the deputy national security adviser getting the sack for being rude to her officials, Trump denounces the military's tardiness in getting to Osama bin Laden - although actually it was the CIA, not the military, looking for the al-Qaeda leader, taking ten years to locate him - and so on and so on. It's almost as bad as being in London right now with Theresa May trying to face down all her enemies in the Great Brexit Drama. The only good bit of news is that under new White House media rules, Jim Acosta, now reinstalled as CNN's chief White House correspondent, won't be allowed to ask endless questions at press briefings, so as to allow other journalists to get a word in edgeways. The fact is that Washington - the political Washington - has probably not been so divided and divisive since the worst days of Richard Nixon. There is the feeling that no one likes or trusts each other. Trump claims to like Kirstjen Nielsen, the embattled Homeland Security Secretary, but wants her to be tougher on immigration, whatever that means. She now knows she probably has a matter of weeks to look very very tough or she will be fired. Meanwhile, bizarrely, the 5,800 troops sent to guard the US/Mexico border have been told they can all go home for Christmas. But I thought they were sent there for the arrival of the thousands of migrants approaching the border by foot. The troops will be home eating their Christmas dinners by the time the migrant pedestrians actually turn up. It's another example of topsy-turvy thinking but of course if the troops have all gone and the migrants start climbing fences and walls in huge numbers, there is only one person who is going to be blamed. Kirstjen Nielsen. So watch out, KN, your days are numbered. I wouldn't be surprised if she greets her sacking with huge relief. Trump claims there are queues of people wanting to work in the White House and that those who have left have done very well because they worked in the Trump White House. Well good luck to those in the queue, you'll need it.

Are the Taliban really up for a peace settlement?

Although I retain a healthy degree of scepticism, I am beginning to think that the Taliban actually believe they will not win a military victory in Afghanistan and the time has now come to negotiate a political settlement. Zalmay Khalilzad, the US special representative for reconciliation in Afghanistan, has just held three days of talks with a Taliban delegation in Doha, capital of Qatar, and no one stormed out. This is an achievement in itself. Of course both sides are setting conditions, none of which will survive the day, but at least they are talking. The US wants the negotiations to be wrapped up within six months but the Taliban have resisted such a short timetable. They have also refused to consider a ceasefire while the negotiations go on. Unfortunately, like extremist insurgents/rebels/terrorists over history, the Taliban believe that maximum pressure needs to be applied right up until the moment when signatures are put on the agreement. And that means as much killing and mayhem as possible to force their opponents to make concessions. So it will be imperative for Khalilzad, an impeccably credentialled diplomat of Afghan birth, to accelerate the talks as much as he can so as to end the carnage in Afghanistan. The US has already made one major concession, by agreeing to hold direct talks with the Taliban rather than deal through intermediaries and leave the direct negotiations for the Afghan government. The talks between the Taliban and Kabul will happen in due course but the main foundations for a peace settlement will be sorted out by Khalilzad and his team. One of the reasons for the cautious optimism expressed by Khalilzad is that during the three days of talks, two of the Taliban negotiators were Khairullah Khairkhwah, former Taliban governor of Herat in western Afghanistan, and Mohammed Fazl, ex-Taliban military chief. Both were among five Taliban leaders released from Guantanamo Bay detention centre in Cuba in 2014, in a swap deal for US Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl who was captured by the Taliban in 2009 after deserting from his base in Afghanistan. At some point all five former Gitmo detainees will no doubt play a part in forging a possible peace settlement. But these two are the heavyweight ex-Taliban chiefs and the fact that they were sitting in the same room as the American negotiating team is a stunning development. One big obstacle to a settlement is that the Taliban want next year's presidential elections to be postponed and for an interim administration to be installed headed by a "neutral" leader. By neutral they mean Abdul Sattar Sirat, an Islamic scholar who has a masters degree in Islamic Sharia law and is a former Afghan justice minister. The Americans can never agree to that because they support the current leader, President Mohammad Ashraf Ghani. Khalilzad will have spelt that out in Qatar. But if the US wants a deal in six months, even that "redline" could turn a different colour. Soft pink or even white, who knows.

Donald Trump is never knocked off course!

Judging by his interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News today, Donald Trump is a man who believes in his personal powers to such an extent that somehow political defeats are always seen in terms of victory and success. It's an extraordinary characteristic of his personality. When he was asked to comment about losing the House of Representatives to the Democrats and losing in areas that were always staunch Republican territory, Trump just focused on only one thing: "I won the Senate". Never mind the House, he won the Senate and that was something historic in his view. The fact is that Trump now has the prospect of facing numerous investigations by the House Judiciary Committee, looking into his business empire, his taxes, his alleged obstruction of justice in the Russia collusion affair, his sacking of James Comey as FBI director and probably a host of other topics. He must know that, but all he told Chris Wallace was that he had won the Senate, as if losing the House was of no concern. Whoever interviews Trump basically gets the same answers. His two favourite sayings or phrases are: "It's fake news, just fake news" or "Let's see what happens". So when he was asked whether Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, de facto leader of Saudi Arabia, had lied to him about knowing nothing of the plot to murder Jamal Khashoggi, he basically said he didn't know but he would see what happens. I cannot believe that the US administration does not actually know whether there is a direct link between the team of assassins and the crown prince. Trump said he hadn't listened to the tape of Khashoggi being murdered, which was handed to him by the Turkish president. But the CIA which very unhelpfully leaked their assessment to the Washington Post and New York Times, have clearly told the president that in their view there was no way the crown prince did not know everything about the planned killing of the Saudi dissident journalist and must have ordered it. But Trump is going to stick to the line that everyone except bin Salman knew about it. His "let's see what happens" just means he is not going to stand up the CIA account. In fact I'm quite surprised he hasn't already fired Gina Haspel, the CIA director, for allowing her minions to leak that stuff to the newspapers. As he made clear in the interview with Chris Wallace, everything to do with his administration is going smoothly. The White House, he said, is a well-oiled machine. It's amazing to watch him and hear him speak. It's all about success success success.

Which of the hardline Brexiteers are really thinking of the good of this country?

When politicians are asked why they decided to be politicians, many of them, if not all at some point, reply rather grandly that they wanted to serve. I assume they mean serve their country, or perhaps serve their constituencies and, as a consequence, serve their country. But how many of the hard ball, hardline, big-time Leavers (from the EU) are putting country first before political ambition? How many of these MPs wake up each morning and ask themselves, "Am I doing what I'm doing because it's in the best interests of the future of this country I love?" Or how many wake up thinking,"Oh my God this is a unique opportunity to get rid of Theresa May whom I have never liked and put in place a real leader like Boris Johnson or Jacob Squeezy-Mop (Rees-Mogg) or (someone no one has ever heard of before called) Penny Mordaunt?" The Brexit disaster has opened a Pandora Box of opportunities for plotting and planning politicians to do their worst and, well, plot and plan to undermine the current government instead of doing everything in their power to safeguard and protect the lives and livelihoods of the men and women who voted for them. The Conservative Party has always been like this. There is more treachery in Britain's Conservative party than in Shakespeare's Macbeth! Don't these disloyal members of the governing party want to continue having a Conservative government? The likes of Jacob Squeezy-Mop have mounted a coup against their own leader although they deny it. Etonian Jacob claims he is acting in accordance with parliamentary procedures. Yes, but it's still an attempted coup. If his coup succeeds and Theresa May is toppled, he will go down in history as the politician who let Jeremy Corbyn become prime minister. That should wipe the smile off his face but I bet if that were to happen, he would come up with some tortuous explanation about the power of democracy or some such rubbish. Right now Theresa May needs her party to gather tightly around her, just like they used to when Margaret Thatcher was prime minister - until they knifed her in the back of course. But there are so many factions in the Conservative party, all twisting in different directions, that Theresa May knows that at any moment, a grey van could pull up outside 10 Downing Street and take her away. What is so outrageous is that none of these anti-Theresa lot have come up with any alternative plan to save this nation. There IS no other way round the conundrum of Northern Ireland. There has to be a customs union arrangement to start with and then we'll see how it goes. That was always going to be the answer unless the UK goes the hard Brexit route which now means only one thing: the no-deal route. Jacob Squeezy-Mop has as much of an idea what that will do to this country as the rest of us. There used to be something called Realpolitik. In other words, you can have your dreams but in the real world, there have to be compromises. You have to face reality. Theresa May's opponents are not facing reality. They are still dreaming. And dreaming of power for themselves.