news. the headlines... the us senate votes to confirm former exxon oil chief rex tillerson as secretary of state, while the white house signals a tougher stand on iran. america's new defence secretaryjim mattis heads to asia with concerns over north korea high on his agenda. never one to do things by halves beyonce and jay z announce she is expecting twins and the news goes viral instantly. beyonce said she wanted to share her love and happiness and has been blessed to times over. stay with us on bbc world news. now an bbc news, it is time for hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk,

i'm stephen sackur. just how ugly is britain's divorce from the eu going to be, and how damaging for the unhappy couple? as british mps debate the formal triggering of the exit process, my guest is an eu politician who'll be at the heart of the complex negotiations over a brexit deal. belgium's former prime minister and current mep guy verhofstadt, has warned britain to expect no favours as it heads for the exit. but how confrontational is he prepared to be? guy verhofstadt, welcome to hardtalk.

yes. i want to talk about brexit with you, but i don't want to start with the detail, i want to start with the context. when the british public voted for brexit onjune 23rd 2016, barack obama was president of the united states. now the white house is occupied by donald trump. to what extent do you think this fundamental shift in global politics — the most important power in the world, after all — how important is that as a changed context for brexit? i think it gives an opportunity from the european side to show and to work on more unity. because let's be honest, what trump has said since now in a few days and weeks is very hostile towards europe. he's saying openly that he thinks that europe could disintegrate further.

he thinks more european members of the eu will follow britain out of the door and he thinks that is a good thing. he thinks it is a good thing to have a disintegrated european union, while i think it's quite the opposite. in fact the interest of the americans is ot in a disintegrated union. the interest of america is to have a very united european ally. and you can only walk on two legs. trump needs an american leg and he needs also a european leg. whatever your sceptical view of donald trump as president and as an individual, the fact is the european union needs to be closely allied with the united states of america. that is one of the pillars of european security policy. exactly, and that is what he is putting in danger. with respect, you are too. some of the things you have said in recent days are actually extraordinary. you have said, you said this yesterday, i am quoting you — "under the enormous political influence of trump's political adviser, stephen bannon, he sent people to berlin, to paris, to prepare the ground

for similar referendum as that seen in britain." yes, exactly. well, what evidence do you... you're essentially saying trump is taking active steps to undermine the european union. stephen bannon has launched breitbart also in europe. everyone knows that's an extreme right—wing news site he is promoting. in fact, extreme right—wing radical views. yes, but that's not the trump administration. you're saying these hostile things about donald trump as president which seem to me to have no evidence at all. i'm a little bit puzzled that you are saying it's not the trump administration when mr bannon has been appointed as member of the national security council of the us. even putting outside... you cited something that is happening at breitbart, a news website. i think it is maybe not the trump administration, but mr stephen bannon, the special adviser of trump. we can discuss about what the influence is of mr bannon on mr trump, what i see

is what mr trump is saying. that's more important. his quotes are very clear. so are yours. i hope to be clear. that is the reason i am in politics. normally you have the politics or politicians maybe here, who are trying to escape the question. i, in my statements, try never to escape the question. yes, let's think about your choice of words. it makes it boring, maybe. it makes it fascinating. your choice of words. my view, you say, is we have a third front that is now undermining the eu and that third front is now donald trump. exactly. it is a word i am coming back to, hostility. you are downright hostile to what you're seeing. i am not saying... i'm not hostile. i am only seeing and i am only hearing what mr trump is saying. you are using the language of warfare. 0k, let me explain maybe. i think we have first of all the threat to europe by radical, political islam, jihadists.

secondly, i think we have a threat by putin, an autocrat in the kremlin who tries to divide europe, already years from now. aand now we have an american president who is no longer seeing the european unity as a pillar for his foreign policy. and he is saying openly he hopes for a disintegration of the european union. so i think we are very much alone. i think that we are for the moment in an existential moment for the european union, and i hope, my response to this is that only european unity can be the answer. i am mindful you havejust written this book... that is my book about it. europe's last chance: why the european states... its subtitle, why the european states must form a more perfect union. ironically, you've taken a phrase from the american constitution. yes, exactly. i think it's gonna be difficult right now to persuade europeans that they should regard as a model

the federal united states of america, but that's obviously... you wrote this before donald trump arrived in the white house. it's not about trump. that's about donald trump now. you're making it trump is the same as the american institutions. what i'm seeing is america, for example, after the financial crisis was capable to react immediately to that financial crisis. they did a cleaning up of their banks, they detailed an investment programme, they did quantitative easing. well, if i look to europe, we are not a union, in fact. what we are is in fact a loose confederation of nation states still based on the unanimity rule, and we are always acting too little too late. in the financial crisis, for example. in migration, in refugess. so this book, i have to tell you, is even more eurosceptic than all the eurosceptic books that have been published in the united kingdom in the last few months. you think the current formulation of the european union simply doesn't work. it cannot survive. you just made an interesting point about the importance of nation states. what trump is, avowedly a self—confessed american nationalists.

"america first" is his message and, interestingly, that message, which is essentially a nationalist message, is echoed across europe in different nation states where politicians are winning with a nationalist message. it's not echoed. it's the opposite. it was first born in europe. nationalism has been born in europe. nationalism has not been born outside europe. what is more than that, i think it is a very tricky thing that is happening. that is, that an american president is bidding on more nationalism in europe. you know what nationalism in europe means? that's not nationalism based on values, it's nationalism in europe based on ethnicity. and what nationalism has done in the last 100 years in europe, we all know it! 20 million deaths, victims, pogroms, the shoah, all of this is based on nationalism. so an american president thinking, "0h, european unity is not necessary, let's go back to national identity, to ideas of nationalism." that's playing with fire in europe!

this is not america! this is europe! we had the shoah, we had the holocaust, we had the pogroms. well, you can... i think it is a fair argument. you can cite the events of the 1930s and 40s at me but let's stick with what's happening today. yes, but it can come back. let's stick with my opening question about the context for brexit. i come back to this basic point about the situation today in europe. you have just seem theresa may in the white house with donald trump talking about the steadfast alliance between britain and europe. you've heard donald trump saying that he is going to seek a very quick trade deal with britain. talking in the most positive terms about britain post—brexit. it weakens your hand as an eu negotiator, does it not, that britain is now looking at this very close relationship with donald trump? i am not reasoning in those terms because i know that the interest of the uk is more in europe than in the us. you know the figures, you know the figures.

44% of the exports of britain goes to the continent, to europe. only 12% goes to the us. so whatever free trade agreement is made between the us and the uk, the main interest of the british industry, the british companies, british workers, british citizens, sits in europe and is in europe. and so these negotiations will be very important. and i am very open about it. i think fairness is the basic principle we need to apply in these negotiations. so when theresa may says, alongside donald trump, that, she said to donald, "as you renew your nation, we renew ours, the opportunity is here to renew the special relationship, the post—eu britain and trump's america will lead together again," your response to that is? my response was yesterday in the streets of london, i think, i have seen thousands and thousands of people not agree with this. i don't believe in the rhetoric

or in the narrative of trump. i think it is devastating. also for the american economy, because protectionism, because that's also part of his narrative. how you can make an agreement between the uk, which is an open society who believes in trade, i think, and on the other hand an american president who is seeing every trade deficit with whatever country as an existential threat. and there is a trade deficit from the us towards the uk. so, good luck with it. i think that it is more interesting for the uk authorities to work together on a fair partnership with the european union because that is the biggest market for the british industry. and i want to tease out what you mean by a fair partnership in a moment. but before we get to the detail of the negotiations, which you will be involved in, just one more specific point which i think arises out of what we're seeing in the united states and what we've heard from theresa may

and that is a question about security. we will get to economics. but security, you know as well as i do that britain has been a linchpin of european security. our armed forces are superior to most in europe, our intelligence services are superior to most in europe. if you talk to people in germany, poland, the baltic republics... all true. ..they all say we need a close security relationship with britain come what may, whether brexit happens or not. that is also my point. i think that we have to discuss not only the economic partnership between the uk and the european union, it will be necessary, besides that, also to talk about internal and external security. what i don't want, it is not my position... it is leverage for the uk. ina minute. it is what i want to say. i don't want a trade—off between the economic discussion we will do and on the other hand the question of internal and external security. i don't think it is serious to make a trade off between... germany has already indicated... yes, but let's be honest,

the important thing to do on the security issue from the european side is to create a european defence union as fast as possible. you know the figures. but if you don't have britain, it devalues the whole thing. may i give the figures, 42% we spend in europe on military, and we are only capable to do io%—12% of the operations of the american army. i am not a mathematician, i'm a lawyer. but i know that it means, these figures, that we are three to four times less effective. and why are we less effective? because we don't have a european defence community. we delegate everything 28 times between the 28 member states. i think this whole discussion, also on security, internal and externally, is a good chance to create finally what we needed to already do decades ago, that's to create a european defence union. right, well... that's also in the book. yes. let's get to the nitty—gritty of negotiating a complex deal with the uk on its departure from the european union.

just some very quickfire practical questions. you said recently that you thought getting a trade deal within the two—year time frame was impossible. you stick to that? i think that's impossible, yeah. everybody knows that it's impossible. well, they don't know it's impossible in london. if you talk to the ministers responsible, they say it's entirely possible... no, no, no, no. all the people that i am talking with know that very well. what we're going to do in this 14—15 months, it is not two years, it is 14—15 months, because at the end of the process, before the end of 2018, we need to start a consent procedure in the european parliament, because it is the european parliament who has to give the green light for the final agreement. so we are going to start at the end of may, beginning ofjune, that gives us a timeframe of 11! or 15 months. what can you do in this 11! or 15 months, realistically? i think the withdrawal agreement is the first thing to do. not an easy thing, i can tell you. to put it in common parlance that is the divorce agreement. before you get to the new

relationship, you have to do the divorce. then you have also to define the new relationship in general terms. but do you do them in tandem? because there is a big debate about whether the two sets of negotiations, one about the divorce arrangements and one about the new relationship. take the treaty, the treaty, article 50, is very clear. the treaty says, first of all you start with your withdrawal agreement in the light of the framework of the future relationship. so you need to have an idea, not more than that, about your future relationship and then you can conclude your withdrawal agreement. to continue then... for example, if it is an fta, a free trade agreement, it will take years. how many years in your opinion? i think the whole period of transition and the period of transition will be two years? three years? so besides the two years, or the 11! or 15 months i'm talking about, you will need the whole transition period to conclude what will be the final agreement with the uk. that's a realistic timeframe.

there are cracks appearing, it seems to me, in the eu's position on some of the key fundamental principles of a negotiated deal. you've said the four freedoms that underpin the single market, they're not going to ever be negotiated upon and there will be no cherry picking. others have sent signals suggesting there can be sector by sector deals which, while britain leaves the single market, will allow britain preferential access to certain sectors of that single market — is that possible? there will be no cherry picking, nobody of the three institutions of the eu will accept that. mrs may has indicated she wants to go out of the union, out the single market, out the customs union, out the european court ofjustice and then say, "that is a new programme that interests me and that is a sector that interests me, that will not happen." sorry, because then she has to take the obligations and the payments linked to these advantages.

you can never create a status outside the european union which is more advantageous than to be member of the european union. it would not be fair towards the members of the european union and to our taxpayers. you want to believe there can be no cherry picking but others have sent a different message. even mr barnier, who is, with all due respect, more important to the negotiations than you because he is negotiating on behalf... he is negotiating and we have to approve his negotiations. exactly. you're an observer and he's a negotiator. according to a leak the guardian got hold of, he told meps that there needed to be a special relationship between big finance and the city of london. that has been denied two times by mr barnier. in the nature of politics he had to deny it because it was an unauthorised leak. sorry, i was in that meeting and he never said it. it was a meeting of the conference of committee chairs of the european parliament.

i was present as the brexit negotiator for the european parliament and he never said that. be assured of one thing, cherry picking, we shall not allow. so when the german car industry, for example, pleads with the german government and says, be real, i'm quoting the head of the federation of german industry, "imposing trade barriers and protectionist measures between the eu and britain, or the two political centres, the eu on one hand, the uk on the other, would be a very foolish thing to do." that's a german speaking. i agree with all this, i'm against protectionism myself, but that's not the point. it's not a point about protectionism. the point is, if, for example... i think that is still the best option, the uk should ask for... to be part of the single market, to continue to be part of the single market, at the same time accepting the four freedoms of the european union. the problem doesn't start with the european union, the problem starts with the uk government saying, "0h, the freedom of movement of people inside the european union, we don't like it because there are polish people coming to work on our construction sites here in london, we don't like it."

i think that these people are very necessary in the uk economy. you know what the labour mobility in europe is? 196. you know what the labour mobility in the us is? 10%. ten times bigger. one of the reasons we have 2 million vacancies in britain and europe is because we don't have enough labour mobility. isn't the truth, mr verhofstadt, that you take the position you take, no cherry picking, no negotiating on these sector deals, you take that position because you're deeply insecure. you worry that if britain is seen to get a deal that works for britain, that actually makes the british economy successful that it will encourage others in europe to follow britain to the exit door. you're deeply insecure about the fragility and vulnerability of the european union. the problem of the future of the european union is not so much linked to brexit negotiations.

the problem of the future of the european union is linked to the courage and willingness of the european leaders for the moment to go forward, like i describe in this book, with the unity and integration of the european union. creating a defence community, creating an economic governance for the single currency, creating an external border and coastguard. so the future of the european union is depending on that. not so much on i think on a fair partnership with the uk. you've been writing books about the need for a federal europe for a long time. you wrote united states of europe in 2006. as prime minister. you wrote another book in 2009 called how europe can save the world, emerging from crisis. you have written these books, which now look like museum pieces, europe has moved on. it's no more about union and federation. it's the opposite that is happening, you are laughing a bit at my books but at the same time i was the one who said we need a banking union before we can overcome the financial crisis. in the meanwhile you agree

that the banking union is now in place. how europe can save the world was your title in 2009. frankly europe has done nothing to save the world in the last seven years. we didn't have the institutions on a european level that were necessary. i already explained to you, we are still a loose confederation of nation states based on the unanimity rule where we act always too little too late. i have described the financial crisis in the book as a typical example of that. and i said we need a banking union and today we have a banking union. you laughed at me as prime minister when i proposed a number of initiatives for the defence union. today these initiatives, european headquarters for example, are on the table. when you talk like this, mr verhofstadt, you play into the hands of people like nigel farage, one of the most imprtant leaders of the leave

campaign in the uk, who says you are a dangerous fanatic and he says you have long been anti—british to the core. that is complete nonsense. you know i'm racing with an old car, it is a 1954 right—hand drive aston martin, how can you be more british than that? i'll tell you, look at your own words, i wonder about your attitude to britain. you said in 2016, according to politico, the website, "politically the uk is already on its way to becoming an adversary rather than a trusted partner of the eu". certainly that is what mr farage is exactly standing for. these are your words. when i am attacking him, i am attacking not britain, i am attacking somebody who wants to destroy the european union. the uk is is on its way to becoming an adversary. is that the way you feel about the uk? absolutely not, what i'm feeling about is we can find a fair partnership. but people like mr farage, at the heart of the brexit campaign and looking to destroy the european union, that's our problem and that is what i will fight against. the thing is, it's not really just about britain.

when you said of the brexit campaign, you described it as the latest high mass of tribalism in europe. it isn'tjust actually in britain where people are expressing great scepticism about the european union, great scepticism about immigration and its effect upon europe. you could look at le pen in france and wilders in the netherlands. look at poland, look at hungary, so many nations across the european union. i don't deny this. i'm fighting against these people. i don't deny le pen exists. i don't deny wilders exists. but i can tell you one thing, the public opinion in our countries on the continent in the eu is not against europe, they are against this european union. that's exactly why i'm saying to you this book is maybe more eurosceptic than all other books that have been published because i think this european union will not survive. what you need to do to convince people who are voting today voting

for le pen is offering them a vision for the future, showing them unity for europe can tackle the financial crisis, the economic fallout of it, the migration flows, refugees coming to europe. security externally. you have been peddling the federalist dream for ten years. at what point do you realise it's a dream and not a reality? the banking union today is a reality because we have pushed for it. i also think tomorrow the european defence union will be a reality because the world is changing and we cannot count on mr trump. so it will arrive. i see, for example, what is happening in france, the french presidency, macron, you're following it, what he is saying about europe, a frenchman saying we don't find sovereignty anymore on a national level, we need it on a european level. let's say a frenchman was saying that, you need to invite him on as soon as possible.

we'll get you back to discuss the state of brexit in a few months or years' time. but right now we have to end there. guy verhofstadt, thank you for being on hardtalk. good morning. the weather over the next few days will come in off the atlantic. looking at satellite imagery from the last 2a hours or so. cloud coming our way. areas of low pressure. windy weather across the uk. rain at times as well. you will have to deal with it first thing this morning. overnight rain clearing away from parts of cornwall and pembrokeshire quickly in the morning. a damp start in wales and south—west england. spreading to the south—east and south—west midlands. here is where we get the best chance of starting the day dry. gusty around western

areas in particular. temperatures will be up first thing. a mild start. the brightest weather will be in the north of scotland. in the wind we will see severe gales around the coast in the west and south. blustery for all of you. rain initially across wales and the south—west spreading across eastern england and parts of the north—west of scotland later on. good morning. the weather over the next few days will come in off the atlantic. looking at satellite imagery from the last 2a hours or so. brighter weather into the west during the afternoon before showers get going to end the day and going to the evening. temperatures in double figures. winds will be strong initially but is back. we will see temperatures drop back into single figures. the breeze will pick up again. on friday, even windier. not at a later in the day. this area of low pressure has caused us problems. it will impact to a certain degree the south and south—east of england.

the westerly winds will be across the english channel into france. fairly benign. dry and sunny in many areas. a few showers in scotland and northern ireland. many areas in the uk remaining dry. wet and windy weather going into wales and much of southern england. strong to gale force winds developing as well. the strongest will be around the english channel. france will get it but so will the channel islands. 70— 80 mile an hour winds. that will spread into the south—east of england. 40—50 miles an hour. that could cause some disruption. details could change. keep tuned in. wind going into northern england and parts of southern scotland. outbreaks of rain here to start the weekend. a quiet story in the south with sunshine at times. goodbye for now. i'm rico hizon in singapore. the headlines: rex tillerson, former boss of the oil giant exxonmobil, is sworn in as the next

american secretary of state. on his first trip abroad, the new us defence secretary heads for korea and japan on a mission to reassure. i'm kasia madera in london. brexit overcomes its first legal hurdle with a massive vote in favour in britain's lower house. the indian state of punjab goes to the polls this week. we investigate the drug problem affecting around two thirds of its households.