in yemen's war. around 17 million people are hungry and 7 million are starving. leaked documents from the united nations suggest both sides are violating international law, killing and maiming children and that the saudi—led coalition is blocking delivery of food and medicine. the american secretary of state has played down president trump's assertions on monday that the united states will win the war in afghanistan. mr tillerson told reporters in washington that the us might not win a military victory over the taliban, but the militants couldn't win either. charges including murder have been filed against two of the suspected islamists captured after last week's attacks in and around barcelona. a third suspect is being held for a further 72 hours for questioning, while another has been released while investigations continue. now on bbc news, hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk. i'm stephen sackur.

politicians and civil servants usually abandon their offices in the dog days of august, but not this year — not in london, where brexit is now an overwhelming political priority. theresa may's government has issued a raft of proposals on what trade, border and legal arrangements might look like, post—brexit. there is a striking focus on continuity rather than change. my guest is one of the conservative party's staunchest brexiteers, daniel hannan. if brexit isn't a clean break, then what's the point? daniel hammond, welcome to hardtalk. thank you.

we are six months into a 2—year process, which will end with the departure of the uk from the european union. are you satisfied with what has happened in those first six months? yes, iam. i think it's gone better than a lot of people expected. we were told during the referendum campaign that the very act of voting leave would trigger an immediate economic downturn. i don't think anyone now argues that that happened. we grew faster in the six months after the vote than we did in the six month before. whether you look at exports, consumer confidence, retail sales, growth, employment, overseas investment, the stock exchange — they are all rising. britain is in a strong position, and i am hopeful that we can have an amicable process that leads to a mutually advantageous outcome, where there's gains to us,

but also to our european allies. of course, this is a process which is a two—way street. we have wishes, desires, things that we want to achieve — i say we, as the united kingdom. the europeans, all 27 nation state still in the european union, and wishing to stay in it, they have their own take and concerns in this. it is interesting that european politicians seem to be feeling that the process is not working, starting with the negotiators themselves, who left negotiations at the end ofjuly, expressing deep frustration with what they believed was the "lack of preparedness" from the uk's side. i don't recognise that description. i think the government is now making public what was in its private negotiating positions up until now, and they are very sensible, moderate proposals on how to maintain judicial cooperation, how to ensure mutual recognition of goods and services, how to avoid a hard border in ireland, practical proposals on customs, and so on.

but stephen, i don't really buy that this is a win—lose operation, that where we have our desires, and the 27 theirs. it is plainly in britain's interests for the eu 27 to prosper. these countries are our friends, our allies, and our trading partners. it would not be in our interest, for example, for brexit to lead to some kind of prolonged bout of uncertainty about the euro, which then affected the prosperity of our neighbours. we want them to do well. so we should go into this process looking for win—win outcomes and for mutual advantages. sure, but any negotiation is an exercise in power dynamic. surely you would agree that right now the leverage lies with the european partners, rather than with the uk. mr barnier, he keeps reminding us that the clock is ticking. the uk is going to leave in 18 months, now, come what may. it is clear from so many different voices in the uk that we cannot, now, conceive of

leaving with no deal. so we have to do a deal. i'm not sure why that countdown is considered only disadvantageous to us. imagine if there was no article 50, imagine if there was no deadline. then we really would be in a position where the talks could be strung out endlessly, where continued — continuing financial tribute could be exacted from us, where we could be subject to all eu rules, without any hope of getting out. so i think putting an end moment on it and saying we are leaving, with or without a deal, by such and such a date, focuses both sides, and makes it more likely that we will have a mutually beneficial arrangement. sure, but i am talking about leverage and who holds the cards. when people like, for example, the boss of an airline, michael o'leary, say that, "if we leave without a deal, then my planes would stop flying," or if we have car manufacturers who say, "if there is no deal, we simply won't be able to send their components, receive their components from our european manufacturing sites, and our production

line will stop," that is a pressure was the united kingdom has to deal with. if you really took it seriously... what, you mean these people are telling porky pies — lies? there are 27 countries in the eu. there are 165 countries not in the eu. and you know what? they have airlines. and they can fly to each other. we managed to fly to non—eu countries all the time. the idea that our planes will be grounded in such an absurd fantasy that it's ridiculous that we're even discussing it is a proposition. you don't need to be part of a political union to trade with another country. and actually, i suspect that the trade talks with the eu will be, technically, the easiest bit of these whole negotiations. there will be some tough talks about the money and, about, you know, agricultural standards and so on, but the basic idea of a free trade area — remember that these will be the first ever trade talks in history where you've started from a position of zero tariffs and of regulatory equivalence.

so for once, the inertia bias is working the other way. with respect, you are one of the longest serving brexiteers i can think of. your voice has been a powerfulforce inside the tory party, urging withdraw for a long time. you clearly have a vested interest in saying that there is no urgency here, and no problem. but let me quote from someone who doesn't have such a vested interest or a stake, the cbi campaigns director john foster, who says this: "business needs urgent agreement on interim arrangements to ensure the goods and services still flow freely, otherwise," he says "we have a profound problem." and the cbi declared itself very encouraged by the proposals published last week on how the customs union would work. he's talking about urgency. now, urgency works in favour of the european union, rather than be uk, it seems to me. actually, it is in no—one‘s interest there to be a complete collapse of the talks. the uk is... actually, let me stop you right

there, because what you've just said is very important. back injanuary, theresa may said, in that set piece speech at lancaster house, she said, "while i'm sure a positive agreement can be reached, i am equally clear that no deal for britain is better than a bad dealfor britain." mm. nobody seems to be saying that. no, no. no, no, i'm saying that. that is a statement of the obvious. if you had some kind of deal — some sort of hunger games—type deal, where they said, "you have to send us a boy and a girl every year to have a..." yeah, of course. of course, right... that's absurd. let's not deal with absurdities. right, well, no, no, no — it is a statement of the obvious to say there is a point where you would walk away. now, what i'm saying is that that applies to both sides. on the day that we leave, we become the eu's single biggest export destination, right? it is not in the interests of anyone in brussels, and i haven't really heard anyone in brussels claim otherwise, for us to walk away without the basic trade arrangements being put in place. but the percentage of gdp of the european collective is tiny compared with a percentage of gdp

that trade with europe represents for us. so in the most crude form, clearly, we have more to lose than they have. both sides have an incentive to reach a deal. would you accept my premise? it depends how you measure it. as a — in — in percentage terms, of course, it is biggerfor the uk than for the eu. on the other hand, the balance of trade is overwhelmingly to the favour of the eu. the eu is selling to britain much more than it is buying from britain, and it's not normal in any trade negotiations for the salesman to bully the customer. let's get to the detail of what has happened in recent weeks, because i think we both can agree that the british government has shown signs in the last few weeks of being very keen to find a way to coalesce — because there are internal divisions — but coalesce around transitional arrangements that can maintain a positive economic relationship with the european union after this 2—year deadline has passed. now, it seems to me, looking at the detail, that key concessions

have already made. i want to know how you feel about them. for example, on the money, david davis, the brexit, sort of, cabinet secretary, he's saying, now, that, "programmes that the uk wants to consider participate in, we will participate in." he has, it seems, sent a signal that ongoing payments will continue to the european union. is it acceptable to you? i think that's a very sensible idea. remember that it was a narrow result — 52% voted to leave, 48 people — 48% of people voted to stay. now, it seems to me that the only way, then, to build a consensus, is to have not an immediate severance, but a gradual and phased repatriation of power that leaves in place some of our existing arrangements. i mean, whatever we end up with will go too far for some, not far enough others, we should try to build a consensus that is acceptable for most of the 48% and most of the 52%. part of that is remaining part of these various programmes,

where they are in everybody‘s interest, where they work to... does that include jurisdiction of the european court ofjustice for a transitional period, recognising their jurisdiction? no, we're working towards an arbitration mechanism such as other non—eu countries in this part of the world have, like the swiss or the norwegians, or whatever, where you can have mutual applicability of each other‘s judgements, and an arbitration mechanism that takes account of ec] and the other party. that sounds very complicated. not really, it's would you do with every other country. it sounds like we are, actually, by the back door, exceding to the jurisdiction the ec]. i have heard people say this, and i think it is important to highlight the difference: the ec] can override the internal statutes of a member country, and has direct effect on the territory of a member states. it is the only court they can do that. no—one is looking at staying in the ec] on those terms, what we want is to have a friendly bilateral deal. it is not in a sense quite personal to you? i am wondering how you react

to it in a personal way. you've spent the best part of your adult life, politically, working to free britain, as you would see it, from the shackles of the european union. but now, we have a government which this summer is sending a message to the public, which essentially says, "worry not, although we are leaving the european union, and we'll do all the symbolic stuff that involves leaving, actually, continuity is the watchword, and we will keep as much of what we had before as we possibly can." does that, in some ways, stick in your throat? no, on the contrary. i mean, before the referendum, i have wrote a book, why vote leave? in which i suggested that it would be a gradual process. i said that the day after brexit would look very much like the day before. that is a day where divergence can start to begin. but it is a new status quo. that's the point. well, it obviously is in our best interests to keep those bits of european cooperation that are working for all sides. so, for example, the basis of the single market,

i would argue, is the rule that prevents discrimination against goods or products from another member state on grounds of nationality. i don't know of anyone in the vote leave campaign who argued against doing that. and there were lots of ways in which you can keep that rule, either through domestic law, or through bilateral treaties, the way that the swiss do — it seems to me that you have sensible things like that, you should keep them. yes, but the problem is that the swiss... research programmes, educational programmes, fine. the swiss deal with the european union based on the economic free trade area — it's a highly complex agreement, and that is a much smaller country than we are. it could take many years to negotiate a deal that is british version of what the swiss have. i know that's something you've been attracted to. but we don't have many years. because even after this message from the cabinet, including philip hammond and david davis, in ajoint statement, is that whatever transition we have, must be over by the time of the next election, which will be 2022 at the latest. so there is very little time, here.

well, the swiss managed it — and of course they are are smaller country, but that gave in a sense, that gave them less leverage, because they're 8 million people, rather than 65 million, and they have a surplus, rather than a deficit, with the eu. but they did manage to sit down and work on issues — like fish farming and the permissible noise of lorries, or whatever a deal — but it did work so well that almost no—one in switzerland thinks ofjoining the eu. the issue hasjust disappeared. both sides except that the swiss have a status where they are largely in a free—trade area, but largely outside all of the politics. and i really don't think it is rocket science to do something similar. one of the most senior members of your party, the conservative party, george osborne, now edits the standard newspaper in london. he wrote a scathing — well, i can't say he wrote it — but he put his name to the paper which wrote a scathing editorial about where the government is taking brexit, just yesterday, in which is scornful conclusion was,

"britain is working hard to prove that we can recreate what we already have." what on earth is all this about if, in the end, even your message is, you know what, so much of what we are going through, all this angst and anguish, is to get is what we are ready have? what we are getting is the right to democracy, to make our own laws and live under our own parliament. wee getting the right to trade with companies around the world, the right to be more global. but it does not mean that you stop cooperating with your friends and allies across the channel. it is possible to be an independent country, take back control in the sense that british law becomes supreme in our own territory, but to use that control through multilateral deals to have working, acceptable arrangements with countries who are our friends, suppliers and customers.

i don't wish to flatter you, but you sound so emollient and reasonable that one wonders what this difficult negotiation is all about. you make it sound so straightforward. i think it may be easier than you think. it is yourjob in the media to find obstacles. unfortunately, you are not representative of so much of what people are... crosstalk people are emotionally invested in wanting it to fail. is boris johnson? of course not. people have tried very hard to stay here. i am deliberately not quoting your political opponents or your rabid, pro—eu opinions in this country. i am trying to focus on the nature of negotiations today. let me quote you borisjohnson. he told negotiators to, quote, go whistle if they get part of the compensation package for part of britain leaving the eu.

go whistle, is that... ? you've been in this game for a while, what would you expect to be happening at an early stage? wouldn't you expect both sides to put in a high opening bid? you would expect the eu to come out with a high figure and for the british to say, go whistle. crosstalk i would not expect that. i would not expect the foreign secretary to use that kind of language and tone in negotiation with the very people who britain will have to do a deal with. there is no choice! on the issue of financing, it seems that the obvious way to solve it is for both sides to accept impartial arbitration, a neutral tribunal, and say, you work out the assets, you work out the liabilities, and we both agree to your ruling. and that would take the issue of the

table. i am sure it would be a lot less than the eu is currently working for. although it won't be zero. but if it is not, you'll be willing to pay it? if it is 60 billion euros, you will pay it. of course we will pay our bills. we are not the kind of country who breaks treaties. so, go whistle was just fundamentally unhelpful? the figure that the eu was coming outwith, even the european commission has completely dropped, 200 million pounds. borisjohnson has already been vindicated, they are no longer asking for 100 billion. if you are so sure that everything in the best possible world can be achieved with goodwill and good temper, do you accept that the european position, which is that there can be no meaningful debate about long—term issues in terms of future trading and an economic relationship between britain and the eu, none of that can happen until the three key "divorce issues"

have been sorted out, that is, the money, the compensation package, the status of the land border between northern ireland and ireland, and the third one, which is the status of eu citizens in the uk and uk citizens on europe. do you accept that? we have just spoken about the first, i think there will be arbitration on money. ireland is a british priority as well. they are our closest neighbour and we all have an interest in wanting peace and prosperity in northern ireland. we don't want destabilisation. that is notjust an eu priority. it is not some kind of concession to be talking about that. the point is... it is not just it is notjust about it is not just about talking it is notjust about talking about it. the irish prime minister said they are not satisfied with the progress made so far. since he said that, we have come up with two very practical, workable ways of not having an obstructive land border in ireland. one is to have a kind of,

we will enforce the eu's enforced external tariff, and we can also work with dismantling the border check but neither of those... crosstalk we will see we will not impose a border. it is this old message again, it takes two to make a deal. the irish and the commission and many other european leaders, whether it be on ireland or the british government's rather convoluted take on customs and tariffs, the europeans are not buying what the british are offering. 0k, ok, so, this is really important. on ireland, we have said, even if neither of those schemes is accepted by the eu, we will not impose physical border checks. so, if there is a border in ireland, they will not be a border on our side. but it leads to the very important

question of what kind of trade deal we get with the eu. you can't discuss ireland in isolation unless you are also talking with some idea of what the eventual customs and tariff arrangements between the eu and the uk will be. you can't say this is a completely separate issue that we will talk about, and then we will come onto the broader one. likewise frankly with the money. if we put in money for the sake of goodwill and to have a deal, we need to know what that deal is going to be. these issues are not completely separate. the issues are going to have to be discussed in parallel. you said, fundamentally, leaving the eu is about democracy. concentrating on that, tony blair, an opponent of yours who believes britain is better off inside the eu, he said, people may decide that they actually don't want to leave on the terms set out. there has to be some way, either through parliament or an election, possibly another referendum, in which people are able

to express their view. as a democrat, who sees this as fundamentally about an argument in the uk, would you agree? iam sure i am sure he wouldn't have said that if the referendum went a different way. they would have been a different line from him. there is no evidence that what he has said has happened. we have had a general election... the democratic case for letting the british people, either in a parliamentary vote or in a direct referendum, have a say when the outline of the deal is done? the only justification for another referendum would be if it were on a different question. in other words, if there were a substantively different deal from the one that david cameron negotiated in february last year. if that were to happen, if a looser arrangement, then that would be different. but you know as well as i that that is not happening. it is quite surprising it hasn't happened.

i was sort of expecting the member states... crosstalk i don't think you can make those predictions. both sides promised to accept the outcome, including tony blair and paddy ashton. the idea that they would be taking this line that they have taken if it had gone the other way, it is absurd. thinking one last time about what might happen next, i have talked about unpredictability. it is clear that the conservatives are deeply split on the european issue. as split as it's ever been. there are people in it who have said, openly, i would be betraying my principles if i didn't make it clear that country comes before party. one mp has said that, if the hard brexit option is pursued by her own government, she would leave the tory party. this could split your party? i hope all politicians would ultimately put country before party. if not, they need to ask

some hard questions. all the parties were split by the referendum. the majority of conservative mps voted remain, and a minority voted leave. since the referendum, the mps who voted remain have behaved with exemplary democratic respect. they did not try to argue, they accepted the outcome. they said, if this is the instruction from the british people, let's try to make it successful. there is a legitimate argument about the terms of brexit, which parts we keep, how much we shadow what the eu is doing. those are all very legitimate questions. we should welcome the input from any interested parties. but the fact of leaving the eu, having the supremacy of british law, that is no longer in question.

that was determined by the instructions we were given by the electorate. we have to end there. thank you for being on hardtalk. thank you very much, daniel. great pleasure. hi there. yesterday was a pretty humid day, wasn't it? but we did have some sunshine coming through. the best of this across southwest england, temperatures climbing to 25 degrees in bute. mind you, it was not sunny everywhere, a couple of inches of rain in northern ireland, 15 millimetres in just four hours in county tyrone. so, some very heavy rain here. rain not just heavy but also thundery. thunderstorms rumbling north—east

across northern ireland through the night. and on into the start of friday, the band of rain has moved away from northern ireland and into scotland. a soggy start to the day here, with some wet weather swinging into north—west england. mild and muggy to start for many of us, with temperatures 16—17 degrees. wet weather still with us for a good part of the morning across scotland. for eastern areas, low cloud with fog patches around the coast and hills. but an improving picture in northern ireland. the early morning cloud breaking to give some sunny spells. gradually we start to see things a bit brighter nibbling in across south—west of wales and south—west england as well. time to see what happens through the rest of wednesday. this area of cloud and rain is tied in with this weather front. it's very slowly going to be pushing eastwards across the country. ahead of that front, warm and muggy air across east anglia and south—east england. so if the sunshine comes out through the cloud, well, it could become very warm.

but generally, the weather turning a bit fresher from the west as the day goes by. nevertheless, i still think temperatures getting into the low 20s, perhaps even mid—20s in the warmest areas in the west. further east, we could see highs of 27. but to get that, we need some sunshine. 27 though would be the hottest day of august so far. wednesday night, that rain taking a while to clear from north—east scotland. then, through the night, showers from north—western areas. it will be a fresher kind of night, temperatures 13—14 fairly widely. the picture through thursday, and a bit of a north—west, south—east split. a flat ridge of high pressure in the south, keeping weather largely dry for southern areas on thursday. but close to the low pressure in the north—west, we're seeing a number of showers affecting northern ireland, scotland and also the north—west of england. and at times those showers could merge in northern ireland, becoming a long flow with the winds. so it could be quite lengthy in places. friday, chances of rain

across the west of the uk. the driest and sunniest weather will be acorss southern and eastern areas. that's your forecast. this is bbc news. i'm david eades. our top stories: a special report from yemen where millions face starvation after three years of civil war. as suspects in the barcelona attack appear in court, police reveal much bigger assaults were being planned. "numb and confused" — princes william and harry talk to the bbc about the days after their mother's death 20 years ago. the world's biggest advertising agency is about unveil its latest numbers in an industry seen as a bell weather for the global economy. hundreds of flights cancelled and the stock market suspended. typhoon hato causes havoc in hong kong.