Freddy Gray

‘Imagine Trump doing Brexit — what would he do?’ asked the Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, at that dinner which was recorded and leaked to Buzzfeed. ‘There’d be all sorts of breakdowns, all sorts of chaos. Everyone would think that he’d gone mad. But you might actually get somewhere.’ Well, let’s imagine. What follows, brought to you by Destiny Media, is Part I of how Prime Minister Donald J. Trump might negotiate and tweet his way through Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union. June 24, 2016 5 a.m. The votes are in and Britain has elected to leave the European Union. Prime Minister Trump leaves Downing Street and calls a special press conference at his golf course, Turnberry, in Scotland. 7.15 a.m.

It’s unkind to speculate over somebody’s mental health. Still, given the stakes, it seems worth saying what everyone is thinking – that Rudolph W. Giuliani’s extraordinary performance on Fox News last night suggests he is a man not fully in control of his mind. The former New York Mayor, 73, who was hired as Trump’s lawyer less than two weeks ago, dropped a news bomb on Sean Hannity’s show. Giuliani said that Donald Trump repaid $130, 000 hush money that his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, had paid to ‘some Stormy Daniels woman’ over her alleged affair with the now president of the Unites States. Rudy Giuliani: Trump reimbursed Michael Cohen $130K for expenses, but it was not campaign money pic.twitter.

A lot of Washingtonians think that, were it not for the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, you wouldn’t have a Trump presidency. It sounds hyperbolic, and the theory has been disputed, but Trump watchers still believe that President Obama’s roasting of Donald Trump at the correspondents' dinner in 2011 spurred Trump to seek the Republican nomination. Trump’s epic pride was so wounded by Obama’s barbs that it made him determined to take revenge. And he did. This year the Correspondents’ dinner has given Trump’s power another boost. I’m sure Michelle Wolf wouldn’t have wanted to help the 45th President: she probably just wanted to make herself more famous.

President Donald Trump and Brexit Britain have a spooky synergy. After all, the last time Donald Trump came to Britain was the day after the Brexit vote. Was it a coincidence? A shrewd bit of PR? Or destiny? Trump himself seem to believe it was written in the populism stars. ‘I think I see a big parallel,’ he said, speaking of himself and Brexit. Now, as Theresa May’s pro-Brexit government struggles, he’s confirmed that he will – at last! – be visiting Great Britain. And it’s on Friday 13th July, when there’s going to be a partial solar eclipse. Spooky, as I said. This trip is far too late, given that Britain and America have been great allies for a long time.

Celebrity opinion, that awful juggernaut, is beginning to shift. It could take another 30 years before we see any great turn. Yet slowly, slowly, famous people are realising that intense political correctness isn't working. Old fashioned identity politics now bores the fans. One by one, celebrities are starting to reposition themselves. The stars are working out that the new rebellious move is to posture against the politically correct left. The real mavericks, to use Emmanuel Macron’s new favourite word, know that in the 21st century, true radicalism – or the appearance of true radicalism, and the fame game is always only about appearances – comes from the right. Radicalism means looking like one is prepared to stand up to authoritarian progressivism.

As I’ve said before, but it needs saying again because these people never stop — the let’s-bomb-Syria brigade has never quite gotten over the horror of being rebuffed by Parliament in 2013. And this week, what with the latest reported use of chemical weapons by Assad in Syria, they’ve got their tails up again. We don’t need Parliamentary approval for military action, they say, and Parliament got it wrong last time so go go go! George Osborne’s Evening Standard is adamant. So are Tom Tugendhat MP and Nick Boles MP. So is Johnny Mercer, who says that voting against military action is a ‘vanity vote’, which is itself a vain statement. Their line of argument is all too familiar.