Michael Gove now the key player

Amidst all the political chaos in the last 24 hours over the Theresa May Brexit deal, two politicians have said sensible things which might just turn the course of events in her favour. First of all, Michael Gove, Environment Secretary and a firm supporter of the UK leaving the EU, decided against resigning, and made it clear he felt his duty was to stay in government in order to help win the right deal for Britain's future. Second, Liam Fox, International Trade Secretary and a fellow determined Brexiteer, made the point during an event that MPs were not elected to do what they wanted but to act in the national interest. Well, that's a breath of fresh air. Those who have already resigned - two cabinet ministers and four junior ministers - did so without laying out what the alternative was to May's deal. So their selfish actions were not in the national interest. Michael Gove who has played a similarly disloyal part in the past for his own self interest has clearly learned a good political lesson. Staying in government to help fight for our country's future is infinitely more acceptable and worthy than slamming the door and flouncing off in the hope that your party will turn to you as the new leader. He discovered that to his cost in 2016 when he tried to be prime minister in the Conservative leadership election, in the process betraying Boris Johnson by dropping his support for him and telling the world he didn't think the former Mayor of London was the right man to move into 10 Downing Street. His disloyalty to Boris and his failed attempt to beat Theresa May did huge damage to his political and personal reputation. But he eventually bounced back and now he has made the right decision: stick with Theresa and play a role in forging a better way forward for Britain. Definitely the correct decision!! Liam Fox's comment is also a good message for all Conservative MPs considering trying to topple Theresa May. Is it about her leadership or more about their own self-interest? Gove's decision to stay may well make a big difference both for Theresa May's survival and the eventual vote in parliament on her Brexit deal. Yesterday most politicians were saying the Brexit deal was dead in the water. But the Gove intervention and the Fox comment might change that. Nobody, except for a few wild newspaper columnists, can possibly think that this deal is worse than having no deal at all.

Theresa May gets stabbed in the back!

I have absolutely no doubt that Theresa May's Brexit deal was delivered in good faith and with this country's national interest at heart. But now all is chaos. Two Cabinet ministers have resigned, several junior ministers have resigned, and Jacob Rees-Mogg, the tall, all-knowing Eton-educated intellectual smarty pants who believes he is leading the charge for any deal that isn't one produced by Theresa May - and for those who don't know, this politician is in the same party as Theresa's government, so how about that for loyalty? - has called for a vote of no confidence in the prime minister.If he gets sufficient votes to back him from within the Conservative Party which I suspect he will, there will have to be a debate in the House of Commons on Theresa May's future leadership. If she loses, she is finished. Then there will be an awful leadership challenge, a new prime minister will emerge, probably followed by a general election and probably Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader who wore an anorak at the 100th anniversary of the end of the First World War commemoration in Whitehall on Sunday, will become prime minister. Remember the name Jacob Rees-Mogg, the man who does not believe in loyalty to his leader and imagines that he could get a better deal out of the EU than the one fought for over 19 months by May and her officials. Incidentally the first resignation today was the Brexit Secretary himself, Dominic Raab, who was party to the deal. Again, so much for loyalty. Good riddance I say. Let May have people around her she can trust to be loyal. But maybe it is all too late. The Brexit deal will probably not pass through parliament especially if more ministers resign. But then what? Does Jacob Rees-Mogg or a future Conservative leader or the Labour Party really think there's a better deal out there somewhere? Do they really think the EU will put up with starting the negotiations all over again? We're supposed to be leaving the EU in just over four months. This great country is now facing a perilous future. At this point no one is in charge. Theresa May will battle on and if, miraculously, she survives, she is likely to be forced into an election anyway. Jeremy Corbyn is waiting in his anorak.

Trump is in a grumpy mood

Donald Trump has been in a really bad and grumpy mood. I don't think he has smiled once in the last few days. I know he was attending a solemn ceremony in France to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the ending of the First World War, but he spent a lot of time whingeing about the poor weather, snapping at Emmanuel Macron, the French president, and then giving Theresa May a hard time over the phone for failing to support his bash-Iran policy and negotiating a dodgy Brexit deal. I don't think he had any friends sitting with him during the service of remembrance. Putin might have been chummy but he looked disinterested, and their once-proposed meeting in Paris never happened. His comment to Macron in a tweet about how all French people would be speaking German had it not been for the Americans coming to their rescue in World War Two may technically be true but at this particular point in time, making such a remark is about as diplomatic as throwing a custard pie in Macron's face. Quite difficult to row back from that sort of callous statement, and it certainly won't discourage Macron and Merkel from pushing ahead with their plan for a European Army. Even as he pouted with irritation at everyone, Trump appears to have been planning some sackings for when he returned to Washington. So he's going to make a lot of people in DC unhappy as well. I have dared to suggest in the past that Trump needs friends both at home and overseas but he really doesn't seem to care. Macron and Merkel will have returned to their respective capitals with very negative thoughts about the US president, Theresa May now probably regrets ringing up Trump to "congratulate" him over the midterm results (now that's a strange one, didn't someone tell the UK prime minister what actually happened in the midterms?), Putin must have had his doubts about Trump set in concrete, and Europe as a whole is thinking, "we don't need or want the Americans anymore". So, Mr Grumpy President, for God's sake cheer up and spread some bonhomie around for a change. Yes that's French for cheerful friendliness and geniality.

Fingers crossed for the 500-page Brexit deal

How many people in the UK are going to find the time or interest to read all 500 pages of the Brexit deal which Theresa May has now agreed with the EU? Probably very few but since this is the most important life-changing, country-changing, future-changing agreement for this kingdom since the event in 1066, it is imperative that as many voters as possible read the lot and try and understand it. Every MP certainly has an obligation to put aside a whole day to read it and comprehend its complexities. It is actually an amazing achievement that we have a deal at all, especially after the brinkmanship played by both the UK government and the EU. But will it be a deal that can pass through the House of Commons? And is it a deal that is fair and balanced and guaranteed not to destroy our economy and our way of life and our trade hopes? The first thing to say is that this agreement has to be better than a no-deal rupture which would undermine this country's economic future. Those who still advocate that a no-deal is better than a bad deal have a strong argument but I cannot believe that Theresa May will put her signature to an agreement that will be bad for the UK. I have a faith in her. Yes, I have faith in her. So I believe after this titanic negotiating, Theresa May will survive as prime minister. Nobody wants a general election which will only add more uncertainty to a post-Brexit UK. Most Conservatives don't want it and if the deal is passed in parliament, none of the high-flying Leavers like Boris Johnson, the former foreign secretary, will stand a chance of uprooting May and going for the leadership of the Conservative Party. And Labour don't want an election, whatever Jeremy Corbyn, their leader, says, because many Labour MPs will probably lose their seats. So, if the deal is seen to be the best that can be negotiated under the circumstances, Theresa May will be bathed in glory and will carry on as leader. The MPs who will devote most time to reading the 500 pages will be the members of the Democratic Unionist Party. If the wording is ambivalent about the border between the north and south they will be the first to denounce it. But I'm sure the language will be sufficiently reassuring to keep the DUP on side. Otherwise, what's the point of the whole exercise? So it's fingers crossed time for Theresa May and her negotiating team. If parliament throws the deal out, then what?! Then we will all be in serious trouble and the Theresa May government will fall.

The slaughter of Afghan troops is an indictment of the West's policy

Of all the terrible stories around at the moment - the wildfires in California, the killing by police of yet another innocent black man, in Chicago, the continuing death of civilians in Yemen, the refusal of the Saudi government to accept responsibility for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, to name just a few - the slaughter by the Taliban of Afghan troops, trained by the US and Nato coalition partners, is among the most upsetting for me personally. The West's whole strategy has been to train and arm the Afghan national security forces to fight the Taliban on their own. Although it sounds a reasonable concept, it has never truly worked because in order to stand up for themselves the Afghans needed the full panoply of intelligence-gathering and logistical back-up which the Americans and others had always supplied in the past. Then Obama stopped all that, thinking it was time the Afghans defended their own country. But the Afghans couldn't cope. Then Trump arrived and agreed to reinstate some of the "enabling" stuff - intelligence, logistics, transport, medical evacuation - but basically the Afghans are still fighting on their own. They have mostly American advisers sitting back at local HQ but for every-day patrols they are on their own, and the Taliban have helped themselves. They have engaged in the wholesale slaughter of young Afghan soldiers and police. Even the Afghan special forces commandos who have proved to be doughty fighters, have been killed on a significant scale. It is incredible that Afghan men are still prepared to join the security forces. Ok they get a regular wage and food. But their chances of survival must be stupendously low. The attrition rate now, after more than 17 years, is appalling. And yet the Taliban hierarchy claims it is interested in a political "peace" settlement. The reason for the slaughter is obvious and it's gruesomely cynical. Kill as many of the US-trained Afghan soldiers as possible until Washington is forced to give major concessions for a settlement. And if the US agrees to concessions, the Afghan government will have to agree as well, and then the Taliban will grab most of the powerful appointments in a future government. The Taliban will be back in political control. So, 2,400 American service personnel and 454 British servicemen and women were sacrificed for this? The Afghanistan story is a terrible example of everything that has gone wrong in this world in the last 40 years.

The 100th anniversary of the end of World War 1 should be a warning for all leaders

Extraordinarily moving ceremonies being held today to mark the 100th anniversary of the end of the First World War should and must remind all leaders of the great military powers that wars like this, on this horrendous scale, cannot ever happen again. I mean world wars, although it would be truly amazing if the ceremonies helped to prevent all wars. But of course that is an impossible dream. The terrible war in Yemen continues, so too in Somalia and elsewhere in Africa. And Russia under Vladimir Putin continues to look as if it is interested in more aggression in countries on its borders, notably the Baltics. Among the interviews of people who have lost sons in the modern-day wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, many gave poignant accounts of the way their lives have changed and the personal agonies they have suffered. One British father of Indian origin, interviewed on BBC, lost a son in Afghanistan, blown up by an improvised explosive device. It was almost too much to watch. He lost the son who had been his most treasured companion. In the First World War millions died. It was a war of indefinable horror. Yet 21 years later, the second world war broke out. So lessons then were not learned. Since then there have been nearly 40 wars around the world. It's a grim reminder that the human race is by its very nature belligerent. But surely the 100th anniversary of the end of what historians like to call the Great War should have some lasting impact on every world leader?

Macron's comment about the US is outrageous nonsense

What on earth is wrong with Emmnanuel Macron? He actually said it was necessary to have a European Army in order to face future threats from Russia, China.....AND the United States. What did he mean by this? Did he really mean that the US might threaten Europe with military action? Has he gone off his head? Just to remind him, the US leads an alliance called Nato which has a certain treaty article which states that an attack on one nation member is an attack on all and therefore all have to go to the rescue of the member under attack. But of course there is no article which says that any member of the alliance which attacks another member of the alliance needs to be taught a lesson because an alliance is an alliance of friends who share common values and common security interests. It's madness to suggest that the US would ever pose a military threat to Europe. Macron can't have really meant that. Perhaps his meaning got lost in translation. But certainly what he said angered Donald Trump who was due to be all matey with Macron to mark the 100th anniversary of the end of the 1st World War. I'm with Trump here. Linking Russia and China and the US as potential enemies of the future is crazy talk. And embarrassing. Also any talk of a European Army is nonsense. It has come up so many times over the years, especially by France but it has never made sense. The European members of Nato just don't have the wherewithal to forge a permanent Euro army and it would never work properly. If Russia attacked Europe with conventional forces, the European members of Nato would collapse without the backing of the US. So, Macron, forget the European Army idea and show a bit more respect to the country which helped save YOUR country from Nazi oblivion.