we'll chew over the latest moves in the brexit talks. and we look at the diplomatic efforts to ease the north korea crisis. my guests this week are the chinese author and broadcaster diane wei ling. john fisher burns, who was for many years chief correspondent for the new york times. the british political commentator steve richards. and the london editor of the french magazine marriane, agnes poirier. welcome to you all. thank you this sharing your day with us. irma, jose and katia. three devastating hurricanes have been tearing their way across the carribbean this week. at the time of our discussion there is a mass exodus from florida, where 25% of the state's population has been ordered to leave. are these storms are a result of climate change? agnes, can i start with you? the paris accord is of course not supported by president trump. what is your take on these

extraordinary and harrowing scenes in some places? can i say something that may sound trivial, can we stop giving lovely names to these bad hurricanes? perhaps if they had demons names. climate change deniers would take them more seriously, and everybody would. stalin? something more ancient, perhaps lucifer, donald trump would take notice! climate change, there were hurricanes before global temperature started rising but the intensity, the frequency, the duration of those storms, they are here to stay. this is the new norm. what happened in texas or houston is our collective future that we're staring at. i

think that it's... you're talking about the paris climate, 195 signing countries, india, china and the us, the biggest polluters, they all came together. it has been ratified in most all of those countries. and of course when donald trump a few months ago said, i'm opting out, he's the only one to opt out from it. because the us cities and states are in it. it would take years for the us to actually get out of it and donald trump will be history, hopefully, by then. so there is the time of the signing and the time of the impairment patient. —— the implementation. and i think it is time for everyone of us. individually, we can have an massive impact on the reduction of carbon emissions. which is at the beginning, which is the root...

individuals can do what they can, but there's a bigger picture and its industry, aerospace, and nations have all got to be acting in concert to have any substantial difference. that's why we had an agreement and that's why for incidents, public transport, the americans must start hopping on trains rather than planes. it already happens in europe. just imagine, a european who hop on playing for one or two hours, started hitting trains, it would have massive impact, same with cars. in europe they would say, oh, the chinese and the americans are the biggest polluters. but it starts at home. mar—a—lago is in the mandatory evacuation zone, one wonders whether that might have an impact on donald trump? and his approach to climate change? do you think, john? i'm

risking unpopularity in saying this but i think that the instinct to go after trump whatever happens, whatever the issue may be, in this case, might be overblown. whatever the issue may be, in this case, might be overblownli whatever the issue may be, in this case, might be overblown. i didn't anyone is blaming him personally for the rising sea cabbages and the hurricanes that have resulted but in terms of his language around it. -- rising sea temperatures. you could say that crime is not a total outlier in espousing some of the more sceptical views of the climate change issue, and i would not have thought that these storms would settle the debate conclusively. there is a debate to be had, it looks more and more likely that there is a connection but it is as yet unproven, i would say, for a significant and a spectacle body of scientific opinion in the us and elsewhere. mainly i feel i got the ball with the idea that we have got a new opportunity to kick trump, there are much bigger issue than

this with trump. every meteorologist i have interviewed this week have made the point that temperatures are rising and crucially sea temperatures are rising which is why you get more rainfall than you have had before, and many of the countries and islands, it's the sheer intensity of rainfall in such a small space of time, that's what causes the devastation. some caribbean islands, completely wiped out. and i'm no expert, and i probably read similar things, that you've interviewed people on, and experts have said that the reason that these storms are stronger than before is because the sea temperature is about half a point or 1.5 degrees higher than usual, therefore it allows the storm to become stronger. and to become these sort of category five, and form and

go through the ocean. i think it's a very good point to start the debate, and to look back to the paris agreement. and to look at climate change. it's not conclusive, one hurricane doesn't change the fact that we have a weather system, but it is the time that we should look at it. and experts have said, this is caused by climate change, and i'm i'io is caused by climate change, and i'm no expert... we need to go back long before the paris climate change agreement and look at the hurricanes in the early years of the 20th century, which were not as devastating but yet pretty devastating, long before climate change on the man—made climate change on the man—made climate change but came an issue, to try and understand this. i think the reason why it is of political significance is not an instinctjust to bash trump, but if you stand back and look at the challenges a new

president or leader could face, this really challenges him in the same way that grenfell tower challenged theresa may in the immediate aftermath of the election because it raised so many customs. the fire that killed 80 people in london. it raised questions about housing, regulations, and issues that went deep into the philosophy of her governing party. for these hurricanes to erupt with a president who doesn't believe in climate change and doesn't really believe in active government, this is a massive challenge. because if you believe in this as leader, at least you have an navigating principle. that this is a challenge, fundamentally, fundamental challenge, and because is something —— the cause is something... the sort of apocalyptic

scale. david cameron was then prime minister, he said i believed the cause of this is climate change. 0nce cause of this is climate change. once you've done that, you begin to have a set of possible routes through. as a president, if you don't believe in that, you're operating wildly in a kind of vacuum, and also, if you don't believe in big, active government which has to mediate between these huge eruptions, you really are struggling to offer the kind of authority and leadership in response to this. and it's also about planning. the issue for trump is only about flood relief, help the victims, of course. but then what about the cause? and we must stop building in flood zones, for instance. we must adapt and change oui’ instance. we must adapt and change our habits. and we must plan for the future. a large part of the debate on the part of those who are

sceptical about the paris agreement has not to do, so much, with the science as it has to do with an agreement which is seen as being fundamentally unbalanced, which allows india and china, which are on the way to becoming the worlds greatest polluters, to continue to pollute a much greater... at very large factor, than developed countries, on the basis of historical fairness. and i think there are a lot of people in the us who feel that that unfairness have to be rectified if there is to be a sustainable treaty. let's turn our attention to other big events in written. the british parliament debated the repeal bill this week. don't switch off! it transfers european law into uk law, prompting accusations from opposition parties of a power grab by government ministers. meanwhile it emerged that the european commission presidentjean—claude juncker had questioned the accountability of david davis, westminter‘s main man in the negotiations, and his political mandate

to conduct talks. steve, how do you assess progress this week? it has been all about brexit as part of the westminster watchers. what is your assessment of how it's been going and what we have been hearing from both sides? virtually every day there is another twist which conveys first of all, the sheer complexity of what is being undertaken here. the sense that time is running out fast, to meet this two—year deadline, march 2019. and there fast, to meet this two—year deadline, march 20 19. and there are so many oddities to this whole situation. labour's position in the uk is more clever and sensible one in that it now is arguing for a longer transition period jeering which the uk remains in the single market and the customs union, but

tries to negotiate a deal on freedom of movement. that's almost the exact opposite of the personal view of the labour leaderjeremy corbyn who's a passionate believer in the freedom of movement but sceptical about the single market. you then have the conservative division which can be divided into four orfive conservative division which can be divided into four or five different ways, all you have had eurosceptics complaining this week about the pace of the government, but pro—europeans express in some concern about this so—called repeal bill. that'sjust in the uk, before you bring in the european dimensional. whatever else, and no one knows how this is going to end, it's going to suck up virtually all uk political energy. so all the other issues, climate change, the nhs, the health service, social care, is going to be, education, is going to be given a tiny amount of space on the political stage while all energy is focused on how you can navigate its

way towards brexit, if it does. and this is for some years to come. we used to spend an awful lot of time talking about the health service and social care and it gets mentioned occasionally now. even if, it's still probable that britain leaves in 2019, there will be years debate about the transitional period, what form it uk, what happens afterwards, is it still a cliff edge in more yea rs, is it still a cliff edge in more years, and on it will go. for a long, long time to come. it is living proof that nothing else that referendums solve nothing. and create works for lawyers and other people. it's fascinating to see steve summarising what's happening in the uk, because in europe, where just watching. watching and waiting for something to happen, voices emerging, one voice, to emerge from

the uk. and whenjean claude—juncker, the european commission, talked about david davis being a very poor negotiator, he was talking about curing. there have been some papers written over the summer. a lot of position papers over the summer. so there was progress but its time, disappointment. in october we are supposed to move from the withdrawal issue, the divorced or settlement and the status of eu citizens in the uk, to the actual discussion about the trade will ship between britain and the eu. this is not go to happen ina few and the eu. this is not go to happen in a few weeks. so probably it will be pushed to christmas, another summit. isn't this why the uk is saying, we'd like to have continual discussions? it's meant to be one week per month and someone has realised that we need a little bit more talking than that. yes, but you also have to prepare between meetings. and it's the world are in,

because —— it's bewildering, i'm not sure brexit is going to happen, but how long will it take for britain to come to its senses and for the british parliament to regain some power? but it looks as if... people will be wondering what you mean by regain senses. in ten seconds, can i say, the british government even though it is complaining that it doesn't have the power that is going straight to the executive, the british parliament is now ce ntresta g e british parliament is now centrestage because this is a minority government. and a minority government is not fully in control of this, because parliament could defeat it. it might not over this repeal bill, it's unlikely, but at some point, the british parliament could assert itself in a very dramatic way over this. but wouldn't that delay things... one of the reasons the government do not appear fully in control is because they are not, they can't be. that's why

theresa may called the early election, to get a big majority, she didn't, she lost her majority. so the uk parliament is centrestage in this. in britain it became very fashionable to say it is at all boring what happens in polmont, but it would be for the next couple of yea rs, it would be for the next couple of years, there will be some big moments. i think it's an admirable thing in british commentary that we find fault first at home with our own negotiators, but i think it would be fair to take a look or two or three at the eu negotiating position, which in the case of mr barnier, seems to be a mixture of napoleonic motor, —— auteur and fairground huckster. over the divorce bill, saying, you got to agree what it should be, before we talk about the future relationship,

is completely unrealistic because the british government, even if it we re the british government, even if it were a labour government, would need to satisfy the british public that there was a fair deal in offing. to ask us to ask the british public to approve a massive divorce bill without considerable progress on the kind of relationship, economic and political we're going to have, with the eu after all this is done, and to have, to be honest with you, a french bureaucrat standing at a lectern in paris and brussels saying he wants to educate the british public and saying that we sent him a duffer, to conduct the talks come in david davis, to my mind, verges on insulting. sorry about that.|j david davis, to my mind, verges on insulting. sorry about that. i do think there's point that britain is missing, or not appreciating. it's the uk are devoted to leave the european union, and it is to the

european union, and it is to the european union's benefits to show that if a large country is going to leave, they leave, there that if a large country is going to leave, there will be consequences. and that's their starting point. i don't the uk appreciates that. what kind of club is this, that says, once you're in, you're in, and if you leave, we're going to punish you? in other words, you leave, we're going to punish you? in otherwords, they you leave, we're going to punish you? in other words, they seem to be taking it very difficult and non—negotiable positions on this to discourage anybody else from saying... but what kind of club is this, we will be in if we have all the benefits, as soon as we see some things we don't like, we decided we re things we don't like, we decided were not good to be in your club and were not good to be in your club and we wa nt were not good to be in your club and we want all the benefits.” were not good to be in your club and we want all the benefits. i think it's a lot more... a lot more history in this than that. that is the european‘s point of view. history in this than that. that is the european's point of view.” think from their perspective, the big difference is not quite unitive versus nonpunitive or whatever, it is, britain, this is a wily

negotiation, game of poker, we will win some. i think they see it much more as a transaction. britain has voted to leave, we have agreed a sequence through which britain will leave, they know how tough it is, but they're going to stick to the sequence as they see it. i don't think they see it as being vindictive necessarily, but nor do i think they see it as a game of poker that the uk party does. they see it as almost like a businesslike transaction that has to be accomplished so that the eu remains strong and in fact. but i don't think there bothered about killing the uk in the process.” think there bothered about killing the uk in the process. i think they're sitting on a volcano and a year from now, the positions of both sides might have to be re—examined because of the internal dynamics. there will not be time. i'm sure we will all be discussing this in a yea r‘s will all be discussing this in a year's time! plenty more where that came from. we will leave that for

knife. —— for now. north korea has conducted its sixth and largest missile test and it looks as though there are more to come. the un and international community continues to discuss tighter sanctions, but many point out that xx years of sanctions many years of sanctions have had no impact. russia says the north koreans will eat grass before they give up their nuclear ambitions, and china still supplies the lifeblood to kim jong un. diane, what more could china be doing now? president trump talks about the role of china, what more could, should, is china able to do more in this opinion was like china could do more because china had 97% of north korea's trade. however china is not willing to do some of the things that donald trump asked china to do. if you think about it, donald trump is trying to bully china and russia, and in some ways, south korea, into

his own policy path. and china takes the view that sanctions will be ineffective. after all, china has had that kind of history, when china developed its own nuclear programme in the 1960s, china was isolated, chairman mao was considered a madman and the chinese were willing to eat grass and have that nuclear programme. so china absolutely understands that functions would only harm ordinary people. and in some ways, because they are so indoctrinated by kim's views and the propaganda, they will sacrifice their own lives, so to speak, to have this nuclear programme. that ta kes have this nuclear programme. that takes precedence over everything by definition. but china absolutely does not want a nuclear north korea, nor south korea, nuclearised. so

china is in a difficult position, particularly now, china's influence over north korea deteriorated when kim jong—un into power. over north korea deteriorated when kimjong—un into power. his father was very close to china and kim jong—un has taken this position that he is going to be his own man, he wa nts to he is going to be his own man, he wants to show the world how powerful he can be, and he's not exactly willing to toe the line of china. so china is in a very difficult position. china has been calling for a twin track position, which is some sanctions but also going back to the negotiation table. is there any prospect of negotiations?” negotiation table. is there any prospect of negotiations? i feel uncomfortable with any analogy between the mouse ate some of the 19605 between the mouse ate some of the 1960s and kim jong—un. between the mouse ate some of the 1960s and kimjong—un. as between the mouse ate some of the 1960s and kim jong—un. as someone who has visited north korea, one of

the significant differences is, north korea is a genuinely seriously evil place. i've been to some very nasty places in my career but north korea was by a very long shot the nasty stuff them. we do know that this is a man, kimjong—un, who assassinated his own uncle with an anti—aircraft gun, had his own half brother murdered by poison in a collar love the airport. to talk about negotiation and i love that this man —— to talk about negotiation and dialogue with this man could be a nonstarter. i think it's best to regard him as a madman. therefore what does one do about the nuclear arsenal issue?” therefore what does one do about the nuclear arsenal issue? i think china has the best hope, that we can avoid conflict, because that would be devastating for everyone concerned, that we can it courage and internal dynamic, not with. ——

notwithstanding how unlikely it is, for example with an oil flagship sanctions with china, which would mean that the military were limited, and there could be a conflict with the leader. to say the chinese appears to be a morally ambiguous position, there is not much to choose between the west and north korea. notjust donald trump, the we st korea. notjust donald trump, the west and north korea in this. i would say that defies all experience of the kind of state north korea is, and of the dreadful, dreadful misery and of the dreadful, dreadful misery and depression that has been visited on them. no one is denying that but i don't think that china is taking a morally ambiguous role here. president xi has been on the phone with donald trump, if today he was on the phone with south korea, there

has been a lot of dialogue happening with western leaders and china. the fa ct with western leaders and china. the fact that there is an idea that you can slap on an imbiber, a trade sanction, that it will create an internal rebellion, it's a myth. it has never worked in history and it didn't work in communist china. has never worked in history and it didn't work in communist chinam didn't work in communist chinam didn't work in the soviet union? no, because... it did, i lived in soviet russia at the time and those economic sanctions definitely helped to bring the soviet union down. economic sanctions definitely helped to bring the soviet union downm didn't work in cuba, and in russia's case, gorbachev came through and was a reformer. you don't have a reformer in north korea. china they would advocate trade with north korea, to open up the borders and the negotiation, and what is the alternative? it hasn't worked. the we st alternative? it hasn't worked. the west at one point was feeding the

north korean population, we were shipping oil to them and it made no difference whatsoever. i would say that china should look to its own interests here because this man kim jong—un is so derange it, there's no assurance that he won't use his weapons against china or his other neighbours. we will have to leave that for another week, i apologise. we will debate that another time. thank you very much to all of you. please do join us again next week, same time same place. but for now thanks for watching and goodbye. hello there. a detailed forecast for the weekend weather coming up, i just want to update you on what's happening with the hurricanes at the moment.

this was the satellite picture through the night, irma made landfall across cuba, it's the first category five hurricane to make landfall since 1925. the eye looks likely to stay to the north of the island and at the same time, jose, a category four hurricane, at the moment, continues to push in a westerly direction. it will make a glancing blow to barbuda and then track off into the northwest where it's expected to weaken slightly. but irma will continue to move towards the shores of florida, expected to arrive in the florida keys by sunday lunchtime uk time. for us, we're still under the influence of this area of low—pressure, it's still pretty breezy along the westerly seacoast. that's going to drive in some showers through the course of the day. they will become more widespread through the course of the afternoon across england and wales and things will quieten down a touch, perhaps for scotland and northern ireland into the afternoon. 14,17 degrees in the sunshine, a scattering of showers continue across england and wales, more widespread through central

and south—eastern areas through the afternoon. heavy, slow moving with lighter winds in the south—east as well, maybe with some rumbles of thunder. top temperatures around 15 to 17 degrees. as we go to the latter stages of the day, the showers will gradually ease away. the winds will fall light, we'll see some patchy mist and fog forming, and perhaps it'll be a chilly start to sunday morning, particularly where in the rural spots, low single figures are not out of the question for one or two of us. into the far north—west, we'll see cloud and rain gathering, an area of low pressure moving in, which will bring some wet and windy weather into scotland. as the weather front pushes its way across england and wales, the band of rain with it will weaken off but behind, a real cluster showers continue and windy with it. so it's going to be a showery, windy scenario to the south—west, highest values once again of 18 degrees. now, on monday, there is little in the way of change. it stays windy with plenty of frequent blustery showers on and off throughout the day. 13—19 the overall high.

and it looks as though this unsettled theme stays with us into the early half of the week as well, as we move towards tuesday, another area of low pressure could bring gales for a time and a spell of very wet weather as well. this is bbc news at 12. the headlines: hurricane irma pounds cuba with winds of more than 150 miles per hour. as the storm approaches florida, nearly six million people have been told to leave their homes, but some are choosing to stay put. now that the path has changed left, we're here for the ride. it's not going to be pretty, we're probably going to be pretty, we're probably going to be pretty, we're probably going to have quite a bit of damage. mexico declares a day of national mourning after the most deadly earthquake its experienced in 80 years kills more than 60 people. also in the next hour, almost 300,000 rohingya muslims have

now fled myanmar in just over two weeks. the un calls for urgent action and warns of an unprecedented refugee crisis. and the manchester arena reopens tonight with a benefit concert more than three months after the terrorist attack