Brexit Day has arrived. Hurray or boo hoo?

Although the Big Day has arrived - 11 o'clock tonight - there is no real sense of change coming after we have left the European Union. But those who support the UK leaving the EU are buying bottles of champagne from the supermarkets and putting up Union Jacks outside their homes as if a Great War has been won and we are all at last liberated. Boris is promising a new golden era ahead of us and invites us to look to the future with optimism and hope. Well, hope certainly, but optimism? I really don't know. I don't feel optimistic. I feel sad, disillusioned, uncertain and troubled, and also a genuine loss at the thought of this island being cast off from its European family. I can imagine arriving with my passport at, say, Lisbon airport to be greeted by a sniffy immigration officer not wanting to let me in. This is probably too pessimistic, but I can imagine some European countries thinking to themselves, "From now we are going to treat Brits differently." It has to be said, however, that ever since we joined the EU all those years ago we never ever felt truly European, not like the French or the Germans or Italians. We are after all an island. And over the years UK governments have rejected much of the EU club membership special offers, such as switching from the pound to euros. We didn't want euro money in our pockets even though we always had to have euro money in our pockets when we cross over to Europe for holidays and business trips. But that was our island decision. And then of course there were all those opt-outs, making sure the UK didn't become too immersed in EU ways. And Maggie Thatcher used to battle every year demanding money back, and successfully. So in a way Brussels has been used to our somewhat reluctant membership of the European community. Now we - well half of Britain - are seemingly relieved that we don't have to put up with all that Brussels bureaucratic nonsense any more. So out come the champagne glasses. I agree we have never been a truly paid-up member of the EU, we have always complained and stamped out feet but basically, as the fifth most powerful economic country in the world, we, the Brits, gave far more than we took away during our EU membership. We and the EU will be the loser by our exit. Now we have to see what happens in the so-called transition period which Boris has set as 11 months but which Brussels says will be at least two years and probably five. That means lots of uncertainty for a long time. We are going back to having blue and gold passports but we don't know what that will mean at airports. And what happens to the mass of Brits who live and work in Europe? Will they be allowed to stay put with no changes? Surely they will. What will happen to intelligence-sharing and the defence of Europe? Well, Nato still exists so I guess the defence argument will be solved although as we, with the best armed forces in Europe, exit the EU, Paris and Berlin are bound to push ahead with their plans for a European army. And how disastrous that will be. So, all in all, today, Friday January 31 2020, is a disturbing and dispiriting day.

John Bolton's revelatory book gets redacted. Wholesale!

John Bolton, would-be bestselling author and holder of Donald Trump secrets, has become Enemy Number 1 in the White House. And Trump and co have the perfect revenge. On the grounds that his book contains top secret classified information, it has been banned from publication for the foreseeable future. In other words until at least November!! It's a classic move by the White House. Bolton's book had to be sent to the review team in the National Security Council that monitors all ex-cabinet members' memoirs and if a chunk of it hadn't been leaked to the New York Times, they would probably have sat on it for months. Now they're going to sit on it for months anyway but claiming that Bolton has breached classification rules. Worthy articles have appeared in the American press saying that under the review system books are only supposed to be evaluated by members of the "records management division" and not sent around the White House for a view, and certainly not from the president. It's all supposed to be non-political, just purely about national security. Hohohoho! EVERYTHING is political. Especially national security. National security is what you want it to be, and the dividing line between genuine secrets and geuine political emabarrassment is wavery at the best of times. By wonderful coincidence, the vice chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General John Hyten, has just declared that far too much stuff is classified as secret by the Pentagon and he wants to start lowering or declassifying a whole lot of information to make it easier for people outside the Defence Department to know what the hell is going on. He mentioned a comical incident recently when he attended a top secret briefing on America's strategic deterrence status - he was then commander of US Strategic Command. The top generals attending were all four stars and cleared for the most secret stuff but their three-star staff officers who went with them were banned from attending because they were NOT cleared for such highly classified intelligence. Hyten said that was crazy. Four stars always want to know what their three-star chaps are thinking! But for the White House, Bolton's book is obviously so full of seriously embarrassing recollections by the former national security adviser that the review board, or far more likely the president himself, wants to whip the rug from under Bolton's moneymaking book dreams by stamping national security violations all through the manuscript. It's such a wheeze, and there is nothing Bolton and his publishers and lawyers can do about it because it's the oldest game in the book. If the White House decides that, "In the morning President Trump rang the British prime minister and said, look you blithering idiot..", is top secret, then top secret it is. Is that sentence a matter of national security? Definitely not, Bolton would say. But Trump and his team would say, "Hang on, that's all about personal relations between the president of the United States and the prime minister of Her Majesty's government, so of course it's a matter of national security." You see? It's easy! By the way I'm not suggesting Bolton wrote this sentence in his book or that Trump thinks the British prime minister is a blithering idiot or that the British prime minister IS a blithering idiot. It's just an example of the kind of argument that might be made by both sides in this Bolton book drama. Bolton himself has made his view clear which is that he knows all about national security after many years in the government business and was sure that his book contained absolutely no violations whatsoever. I recall Bob Gates being annoyed when he submitted one of his memoirs to the White House, believing it to be free of any classification breaches. As a former defence secretary and CIA director he also knew all about what should remain secret. But lo and behold, the Obama administration blue-pencilled chunks of his book and he wasn't happy at all. In Bolton's case I imagine that most of the chapters now look more blue than white. Expect over the next few days further leaks to The New York Times!

Reporters under fire while trying to do their job

Journalists have had a tough week. First there was the reporter with The Washington Post who within hours of the breaking news that iconic basketball player Kobe Bryant (ooops, I had never heard of him!) had been killed in a helicopter crash, tweeted a link to a Daily Beast newspaper article from way back which detailed the charging of said basketball player with the rape of a 19-year-old girl in a hotel room; the reporter, Felicia Sonmez, was rebuked by her editor and suspended on the basis that she might have breached the paper's social media rules and damaged the paper's reputation. She has now been reinstated after the management decided she hadn't breached anything although the timing of her tweet was seen as unfortunate. Ha! My view? Truth will out, I'm sorry about the tragic death of a sports superstar but the rape charge, even though it was settled out of court with presumably lots of money handed over to the 19-year-old accuser, somewhat changed the glow of adoring words that appeared in every newspaper across the world. But Felicia could have waited 24 hours. Second there was the spat between National Public Radio reporter Mary Louise Kelly and Mike Pompeo, secretary of state. Pompeo was caught on the hop when she started asking him about Ukrainegate when he claimed he had only agreed to be questioned about Iran, and later took her to one side off-mike and berated her with four-letter words for daring to raise Ukraine. His role in the whole affair is still somewhat muddied. She then told the world what Pompeo had said to her, allegedly privately, in his burst of temper. Pompeo said his outburst was off the record and private but Kelly said he had never stipulated that his angry remarks were off the record. Oooops, Pompeo, you know the rules or should do by now. You have to state whether something is on the record, off the record, attributable or non-attributable or whatever, especially in the US where these ground rules are seen as of biblical importance. Ha again! My view on this one? Kelly claimed she had told Pompeo's staff that she would be raising Ukraine. I'm sure she did, but somehow Pompeo either wasn't informed or he wasn't listening. So he was taken by surprise by her questions on Ukraine. But hey, you're a grown-up politician, Pompeo, you should have answers to every question whether surprise ones or not. Being the secretary of state you must have known what Trump and Rudy Giuliani were doing in putting pressure on Ukraine's President Zelensky re the Bidens. So the questions were totally legitimate. As for the "private" scolding of Kelly after the interview, that smacks of heavyweight bullying. Not nice, and then the banning of an NPR reporter from joining him on his next foreign trip just underlined Pompeo's lust for revenge. Pretty unappetising. Then of course Trump had to weigh in by turning to Pompeo during the statement re his so-called peace initiative for Israel and Palestine and praising him for putting one on the NPR reporter. "You did a good job on her," he said with a smile. Yuk!! I don't know Kelly but I have had dealings with NPR. It's an excellent radio station with highly professional reporters. I'm sure Kelly is one of them. And third, there was the comment from Lord Tony Hall, outgoing BBC director-general, that the broadcaster's political journalists should be less aggressive when interviewing politicians. He said he didn't like it when interviewers tried to "catch out" politicians instead of allowing them to give uninterrupted answers. Well, he's right and he's wrong. It can be very irritating when a TV or radio interviewer constantly interrupts during a politician's answers, so much so that the interviwee never actually gets a chance to say what he/she believes he/she wants or ought to say. So, yes, slightly less of the "I'm the important one here and I want you to give me the answer I want you to give, NOW". But on the other hand, many senior politicians if unchecked just go on boringly with the Whitehall-agreed rubbish soundbites that mean very little and certainly go nowhere near answering the specific questions posed to them. Jeremy Paxman, the Great Interrupter, took his art too far and became so predictable every interview he did in his latter career tended to be about him and not the person he was interviewing. Other BBC notables have adopted the Paxman-style interrupting. My view? Provided the balance is right and the politicians can actually get across what they need to say, then robust questioning is both acceptable and necessary, and can be highly entertaining. Getting the balance right is key. Tony Hall clearly would not make a good political interviewer.

No actual crime has been committed claims Trump lawyer egghead

Lawyers acting for Donald Trump in his impeachment trial are doing a fine job arguing the toss over whether an actual crime has been committed and whether the president abused his power as chief executive. The highly paid legal experts obviously take exactly the opposite view of those legal colleagues who are claiming that all the evidence points to a clear case of impeachable crimes. For the senators, Republican and Democrat, I doubt any of these sophisticated arguments and counter-arguments will make any difference. They have aleady made up their minds, based on their political allegiance, not on their view of constitutional niceties. So in a sense all this trial back and forth is a waste of time. Unless there is a dramatic revelation, such as a piece of unbelievably damaging intelligence not previously made public, the trial will come to an end and Trump will be acquitted. I don't believe that even if John Bolton is allowed to appear as a witness he will make such a huge difference that Republican waverers such as Mitt Romney will stand up and be counted and vote with the Democrats. Bolton's position has already been sullied by having bits of his forthcoming book leaked to The New York Times. Lawyers for Trump will just say Bolton did it - leaked the damaging bits about what he says Trump told him about Ukraine and the military aid quid pro quo - as a publicity stunt to boost sales. It doesn't matter whether Bolton and his publishers had nothing to do with the leak. The lawyers will make the accusation anyway, just like lawyers do in criminal court cases. "I put it to you that you were so angry you went to your friend's house, broke down the door and killed him with a samurai sword." "But I was in Australia at the time and don't possess a samurai sword." And so on. The most blantant lawyer for Trump so far is the super-distinguished Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus. With such a job title he surely knows what he is talking about? He's a constitutional expert. He rather sweetly told the trial that he wasn't doing what he was doing to protect the president and to engage in political matters. He was there solely to protect the constitution and see that the founding fathers' wishes were duly carried out. And just for good measure he said he loved his country AND the constitution. If you were a Democrat listening to such elegant words you might have thought that, wow what drama, Professor Dershowitz was about to say something like, "As a result I believe that the constitution under President Trump has been abused and misused and seriously damaged." But no, the wise professor said exactly the opposite. Trump had acted in accordance with the noble constitution. What he had done in phoning up the new president of Ukraine re the Bidens and arranging separately for nearly $400 million in military aid to be suspended did not breach the founding fathers' requirements. All was absolutely fine. No crime had been committed, and under the constitution a crime HAD to be committed by the president for him to be found guilty of impeachment and abuse of power. No crime, so no case. To emphasise his total political neutrality vis a vis Trump and the Republicans, he revealed he had voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. So there we are. Professor Dershowitz has spoken. I add only one more thing but without making any comment or judgment: the illustrious professor defended O.J. Simpson and Jeffrey Epstein.

Who leaked John Bolton's draft manuscript to The New York Times?

Let me get this straight. So John Bolton, former Trump national security adviser, and his publishers sent a draft manuscript of his forthcoming book to the National Security Council for vetting purposes, to make sure he had not inadvertently included classified information in his account of his time serving in the Trump administration. And the draft was leaked to The New York Times! One copy only was sent to the committee that vets former administration officials' books and someone, presumably either serving on this committee or somewhere within the National Security Council decided to make a copy and send it to the newspaper. Absolutely extraordinary. Or perhaps not. Trump has known almost ever since he came to power that he does not attract total loyalty among his closest advisers. But this is a serious breach of confidence and loyalty. The timing of the leak is also so obvious. The Senate trial of Trump on impeachment charges has got to the point where a decision has to be made about allowing or banning witnesses from appearing before the Senate. The House members want it, a few Republican Senators are wavering and Senator Mitch McConnell, Senate Republican leader, is determined to forbid witnesses from appearing. So bang! The New York Times publishes the juiciest morsel from the Bolton book which makes it clear, in Bolton's memory, that Trump categorically stated he wanted the Pentagon to withhold the near-$400 million due to the Ukrainian government to fight off the pesky Russians in eastern Ukraine, UNTIL the Kiev government under the newly elected President Zelensky had agreed to investigate and dig up dirt on Joe Biden, Trump's main Democratic rival for the 2020 election. Well, you might argue, the Democrats have been claiming this for weeks/months. It's the notorious quid pro quo which lies at the heart of the impeachment charge and which Trump has always denied. But ths is Bolton saying it, or writing it. Few people are closer to the president than the national security adviser. If Bolton recalls those were the words of Trump, then most people would probably believe it to be true. So of course now the Democrats are even more insistent that Bolton must give evidence to the Senate trial. He didn't appear in the House stage of the impeachment process because he had been ordered not to appear by the president, and Bolton did as he was told. But now Bolton's dramatic recollection has appeared in print it's going to be more difficult for McConnell to say no to witnesses. Either way, the Democrats are going to bring up the book contents at every available opportunity. Who leaked the manuscript? Was it someone in the National Security Council? The draft manuscript was sent to the NSC's records management division on December 30, so it has been sitting around for nearly a month. Either The New York Times got a copy some time ago and just bided their time to make the greatest impact, or it was delivered into their hands very recently and they rushed into print. Bolton's lawyers have accused the NSC of "corrupting" the pre-publication review process, although it has to be said the publicity will do the book's sales prospects no harm at all! Trump, for probably the 100th time since he became president, will be furious and will be regretting he ever appointed Bolton to be his national security adviser.

Boris's relatively quiet start is about to become hugely controversial

After the Boris runwaway election victory, we as a country just seem to have been waiting for the moment when we leave the EU in less than five days' time and then see what happens. Boris has carried on with being prime minister without causing a national stir about anything. But that is all going to change in the next week or so. First there is the HS2 (High Speed) decision, whether to continue with the superfast rail link between London and Birmingham and in a later phase to Manchester and Leeds. Apparently $12 billion has been spent already and much of the required land has been purchased. Despite the ridiculous cost estimated to be more than $100 billion, to scrap it now when Boris has stressed how vital it is to develop infrastructure for the Midlands and North, would be madness. He and the Cabinet must surely approve the project and get on with it and make sure that the costs are brought down. When the Channel Tunnel was beng built, costs rose and rose and there were calls for the whole idea to be scrapped but with the British and French governments determined to get the historic project completed it carried on and today it has transformed travel between the two countries and is seen as a success story. The HS2 rail link must go ahead, although I totally sympathise with those who are going to lose their houses and gardens and, in some cases, villages, to let the rail route run through the middle of England. But, as I have written before, the North desperately needs huge investment and a high-speed rail link will play a key part in improving living and working conditions. So, Boris, yes to HS2, please. As for the other big decisions, on Huawei, trade with the US and trade with the EU, a formula which keeps everyone happy has to be found. It's an industrial decision, a political decision and a diplomatic decision. It's time for Boris to demonstrate he has the intellect and strength of mind and vision to sort through the mass of differing arguments for and against and go for what's best for this country in the long term. There is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't negotiate two separate trade deals at the same time, one with the EU and the other with the US, provided enough effort and manpower are provided. The trick will be to avoid pissing off either the US or the EU. Right now, the US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin says he wants a trade deal with the UK by the end of the year, Boris says he wants a trade deal with the EU by the end of the year, and the EU says a trade deal with the UK by the end of the year is impossible. So, go for the US deal and press as hard as possible with the EU to at least try and get a trade deal before, say, the summer of 2021. Mnuchin of course is playing the political game, hoping Boris will do what the Trump administration wants on Huawei and other issues and promising, in return, a big fat trade deal in double quick time. It's unrealistic but Boris might as well play along, although he will need to find a magic formula to please Trump over Huawei and its 5G technology. That may be wishful thinking. But come on Boris, get that brain working. And don't listen too much to certain senior civil servants who seem to be pushing him away from doing anything to please Trump. We HAVE to keep that so-called special relationship intact as well as keep the EU happy. Impossible? Maybe. But that, as they say, is why the prime minister and his cabinet are paid big bucks!

Bezos Mohammed bin Salman Israel and the hacking scandal

The Israeli company at the centre of allegations that Amazon founder Jeff Bezos was the victim of a malicious phone hack by the crown prince of Saudi Arabia faces court action by Facebook's WhatsApp next month over a cyber attack against 1,400 people in 2019. The company, NSO Group, a subsidiary of Q Cyber Technologies, based near Tel Aviv, developed the Pegasus spyware which was allegedly used by Mohammed bin Salman to breach Mr Bezos's iPhone and extract a mass of private data including details of an affair from his WhatsApp account. Saudi officials have described the accusation made in a UN-backed report as "absurd". US sources linked to American service providers, said NSO was paid "by governments" to provide the highly sophisticated spyware, One source said the US and Britain seemed reluctant to strengthen laws against the use of such advanced spyware. WhatsApp has urged the US Justice Department to investigate the alleged use of Pegasus spyware against its customers. But the US government had been reticent about acting against spyware companies, the sources said. US intelligence sources said any investigation into the hacking of Mr Bezos's phone was a matter for the FBI as it involved an American citizen. An FBI spokesman would not comment on whether the agency had begun an investigation or whether there was any suggestion of a wider involvement in the accusation that Mr Bezos's phone had been targeted. Mr Bezos is owner of The Washington Post, often seen as a critic of the Trump administration. Details of the affair which ended Mr Bezos's marriage were leaked to The National Inquirer, the American tabloid whose owner is a strong supporter of President Trump. WhatsApp is already suing NSO, accusing the company of being behind a cyber attack that affected the video calling system used by 1,400 customers, including 100 journalists and human rights activists. It's the first time an encrypted message provider has taken legal action against a private company accused of targeting its users. NSO denies being involved. The court case starts in San Francisco early next month. When the law suit was filed in October ast year, the NSO Group said it would vigorously fight the lawsuit and issued a statement saying the sole purpose of the company was "to provide technology to licensed government intelligence and law enforcement agencies to help them fight terrorism and serious crime".