Our internal affairs are none of Washington's business. Many people rightly denounced Barack Obama's crude attempt to influence the EU referendum by saying we would be at 'the back of the queue' for an American trade deal if we voted to leave.
The same people must logically also denounce Donald Trump's gross and ill-mannered intervention in our private affairs on Friday, which he then pretended, totally unconvincingly, not to have meant.
Both Presidents may well have been speaking something like the truth, though in fact trade and investment between us and the USA are pretty healthy in any case, mainly thanks to our similar laws and languages.
But it is our affair, not theirs. The two Presidents should have known better, and so should whoever in Britain advised them to poke their noses into our affairs.
The Obama interference backfired so badly that it probably swung the vote to Leave. Mr Trump's meddling, especially his mischievous endorsement of 'Boris' Johnson (his real name is Al), may possibly help save Mrs May from her own Tory Party.
What do I think about it all? As one of the most longstanding campaigners for a British departure from the EU, I am in near-despair at the way an honest, patriotic cause has been hijacked by frantic free-traders, mini-Trumps who know the price of everything and the value of nothing, and have no real interest in this country at all.
I want to preserve our liberties, unique laws and form of government, our Christian culture, our beautiful, flexible language, our unrivalled landscape, the irreplaceable gifts of a thousand years free from invasion.
I want my maps measured in yards and miles and my groceries in pounds and ounces; and I hope in the end to be laid in 6ft of English earth, not two blasted metres. But I couldn't care less about our supposed freedom to import GM foods and chlorine-washed chicken from the USA.
In fact, I strongly suspect that people who think this is the most important issue are as much of a threat to my kind of Britain as the EU is. What's more, I cannot see that creepy obeisance to the USA is any better than crawling to Brussels. It does not matter what kind of President the USA has.
Franklin Roosevelt stripped us of wealth and empire. Truman broke promises to share nuclear technology with us. Eisenhower humiliated us at Suez. LBJ loathed us for refusing to join his mad adventure in Vietnam. Reagan wanted us to sell out the Falklands to Argentina. Clinton actually made us sell out to the IRA. George W. Bush made us his lapdog. Obama was pretty openly our enemy.
In most cases, they were not personally hostile to Britain. Some of them actually quite liked us. But in US politics, if you can offer the President's party neither votes nor money, you don't count.
Trump cares little about this country. His arrogant rudeness towards us suits some domestic game he is playing, for he is the most brilliant politician since Princess Diana - not especially intelligent or knowledgeable, but cunning beyond belief. He knew what he was doing when he said what he said, and you may be sure it was for his benefit, not ours.
Why DID we fall for the Drab Four?
I can still remember the evening in 1968 when I tried, and failed, to get into a packed showing of The Beatles' cartoon Yellow Submarine, then a sort of cult. I never did manage to see it at the time.
So I was filled with curiosity when it was revived last week after 50 years. It was terrible.
This wasn't just because it was full of the idea that the bought pleasures of noise (and perhaps, just possibly, drugs) were the only real happiness, and that other approaches to life were grey and miserable.
It was because the whole thing was so crude. There was no proper plot, and the jokes were dreadful.
Long before 1968, Disney's brilliant animators had created works of art with cartoons. But this was lame and slow, and made surprisingly little use of music.
The cartoon Fab Four were also shown in their embarrassing Maharishi Mahesh Yogi phase, all droopy moustaches and candy colours.
How could it have been a success? Yet again, the only conclusion you could draw was that they had put something in the water round about 1967, and everyone between the ages of 15 and 30 had taken leave of their senses.
'They always say 'Nothing can derail the Peace Process'. Why can't it?
When I point out that Britain surrendered to IRA and 'loyalist' terror in 1998, which is exactly what we did, I am shushed and asked angrily whether I am against peace. But 20 years after that capitulation, there is no real peace. True, much of the low-level intimidation and sectarian crime which continues does not get reported here. But the past few nasty days in Londonderry have reminded the complacent of what is actually happening. Don't you think the IRA could stop this if it wanted to? The question is, why doesn't it want to? We took a short cut, buying fake peace by appeasing killers. As always in such bargains, we got neither peace nor honour. I am still predicting the sight of Irish troops firing plastic bullets on the Protestant Shankill Road, perhaps within 20 years.
The Truth is lost in the propaganda war over Syria
Back in April I was treated with something very like contempt because I refused to be rushed into supporting a Western attack on Syria.
This illegal assault was supposedly justified because of alleged gas attacks by the Syrian government in Douma.
As I said at the time, there was no independent evidence that this had actually happened, and also no good reason to rush into action.
The area affected had at that time been under the control of a savage Islamist militia, and so Western journalists and diplomats could not safely go there.
But lurid and distressing reports on the supposed atrocity were prepared by media organisations hundreds or thousands of miles away on the basis of material provided by propaganda sources. They were given great prominence.
Now, almost unreported, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has produced its first report on Douma. The OPCW is not perfect, and has sometimes got carried away, but on this occasion it has been properly cautious.
In April, a major and rather self-important Left-wing national newspaper wrote that unidentified doctors 'said the symptoms had been consistent with exposure to an organophosphorus substance'.
Now the OPCW says: 'No organophosphorus nerve agents or their degradation products were detected, either in the environmental samples or in plasma samples from the alleged casualties.'
Lots of other things remain unresolved. The whole report, and a discussion of it, can be found elsewhere on my blog and here.
But those who scorned me when I urged caution owe me an apology, I think.
Comment: More from Peter Hitchens: