are fleeing into bangladesh from myanmar every week. many of them are in urgent need of medical attention. aid workers say they are struggling to cope with the high numbers of children at risk of dying. donald trump's chief of staff, john kelly, has said he was stunned by the criticism of the president's phone call to comfort the family of a sergeant ladavid johnson, who died while serving in niger. and this video is trending on bbc.com... it's the moment when three of europe's leading politicians decided to make their conversation a little less public. both the french president and german chancellor decided to keep their advice to the british prime minister private. what they actually said on their way into an eu summit in brussels is still a mystery. welcome to hardtalk, i'm stephen sackur.

in 17 months‘ time, britain — barring a sensational political u—turn — will be out of the european union, but on what terms? how will post—brexit britain relate to the club it has just quit, and the rest of the world? these are questions that theresa may's government is struggling to answer, but they are no less difficult for the opposition labour party. my guest today is labour's shadow foreign secretary, emily thornberry. what would the opposition do about brexit? emily thornberry, welcome to hardtalk. thank you. you have slammed theresa may

and her government for being divided and utterly confused about what they want from brexit, which, of course, raises the question — are you clear about what you and the labour party want from brexit? i mean they are. they're incredibly confused, and they do say a whole lot of contradictory things. will i think they've come forward with a number of red lines, which they're now trying to change, or they're trying to say "we didn't really mean it", or she's trying to say at home i meant it, but abroad saying i don't mean it, so we are in a terrible place. therefore incumbent on you in the opposition to be absolutely clear. no, i agree, i agree, as clear as we can be. i think the whole brexit drama is a psycho drama played out because of the tory party, because of their internal divisions. it began, the reason for the referendum in the first place was because of that but anyway. believe me, we have representatives of the tory party, the theresa may government,

on this programme, and we talked to them about their positions, but you're here today to talk about your position. i just want to know just how clear your vision is. what is your vision of what brexit‘s going to look like? so, we began with not wanting to leave the european union, we campaigned to remain in the european union. we are internationalistsand we think it's the intersts of our country to remain in the eu, but we lost the referendum and we're democrats, and so we do what the country tells us. our instructions are that we leave the european union, and our approach would have been completely different. we would have gone to our european friends and said, we've got a problem, we have to leave, you have a problem, we're leaving, let's try and sort something out together. we're not putting down ridiculous red lines, we're not sweeping things off the table, let's just talk. but we do need to say we need to leave, we want to look after our economy, we can't pretend that the referendum was not about people's concerns of migration. let's start with the big picture. we need to leave, you've just said, so in your mind, no question — there will absolutely not be another

referendum, there will not be a reversal of this decision to leave? no. we go into this in good faith. we had a referendum, we were given our instructions, we have to abide by those instructions in good faith. people need to trust us. but you presumably, have you changed your mind, or are you still a remainer? no, i think we should remain, but the point is, i do believe in democracy more than anything else. there were people who came out to vote in that referendum who i genuinely think came out to vote because they felt they weren't being listened to, because they had been ignored. imagine, you come out and vote for the first time in decades to leave the european union and then the london elite turns round and says, "you're too stupid, we're not going to pay any attention to what you say, we think it's better to stay in the eu". what would it do to british democracy if we did that? well, what will it do to that constituency of people, when they pick through labour's proposals for brexit, which appear to me to be saying right now, you know what, we will in essence do a deal with the eu which says that

for an indefinite period, we will abide by the current rules of the club, we will leave, formally leave the european union, but still have all the duties and obligations which we had before, but without a voice at the table. we leave the european union, which is what our instructions work, but we have always said that our first priority is the economy. many of the people who voted to leave the european union would be in danger of losing their jobs if we didn't come out with a good continuing relationship with the eu. the brexit shadow secretary said the other day, "labour would seek a transitional deal of indefinite period, it seems, that maintains the same basic terms that we currently enjoy with the eu." that's right. so in terms of all those four pillars, including freedom of movement, including the role of the european court ofjustice in britain, nothing changes. so what on earth is the point of leaving the european union? we've had our instructions to leave, we need to have a period

during which we extricate ourselves from the european union. there are... but with respect, there is no extrication going on. no, no, no, the interim period is notjust an interim period going on indefinitely, we're not going to be leaving — we will be leaving. we just need to have a period of time during which we work out what our unique relationship with the european union will be. we need to have a british style custom—made agreement. we can't get into bed with the norwegians or a norwegian style deal. the bed isn't big enough for britain, our economy is too big. we're not turkey, we're not switzerland, we're not canada. we need to have an ongoing relationship with the european union — that will take many years to negotiate, and we can'tjust say, we've been given our instructions to leave, we're too lacking in confidence that the establishment will allow us to leave, so let's all throw ourselves off a cliff and then we've definitely gone.

that's not how it works. we are acting in good faith. we will leave, but we will leave in accordance with what is right for our economy, and that will take some time. particularly, frankly, since... what has happened in the last 16 months? you say there's 17 months to go until we leave, what's happened in the last 16 months? they've done sweet... you know, nothing. they've just spent all their time fighting amongst themselves and they have wasted all this time and we're now halfway through the alleged period, so of course we need to have a period, an interim period. i frankly feel that they need to be doing no more harm to britain and leave it in a status quo, and then hopefully they'll be an election and we can be responsible for the negotiations. your party is utterly divided, isn't it? no. just as you say the conservatives are, you are too. no. on one side you have alastair campbell, tony blair's former chief of spin saying, look, we need to be clear, and you talked about the cliff edge,

alastair campbell talks about the cliff edge and says, "it is quite obvious now that britain simply cannot afford to leave the eu, the single market, the customs union and throw the economy off a cliff". i think that there are some people on the fringes of the labour party who think we should ignore a democratic decision by the public, and i respect them, but i don't agree with them. they don't say ignore, but they do say... no, they say ignore. they say, and the latest yougov poll, i don't know if you've seen it, peter kelton the pollster says it's very interesting that even core support for brexit among the cde, the sort of blue—collar, working—class voters of this country, are beginning to have a much more negative view of brexit. so if the opinion polls are suggesting that something fundamental is changing in the country, isn't it incumbent on the labour party to consider that? i'm not pretending that we haven't considered it, of course we've considered it, but the conclusion we have come to is that whilst you have a conservative party who've plumped for the 52%, those that won the referendum, that wanted to leave, and we've got liberal democrats

who plumped for the a8, there needs to be a party that actually tries to bring the country together. there needs to be a party with statespeople in it. there needs to be a party who are proper democrats and actually, you know, this is not rocket science... if 52% want to leave and 48% want to remain, then the solution is, by the bringing people together, is, yes, we leave, that keeps the 52% happy. but you don't have to go very far and that would keep the 48% happy. that is the reasonable way... people caricature it as a soft brexit, i don't want to get into all of that, but that's the essence of what we're trying to do. you say you don't want to get into it.... unfortunately there is a negotiation. if you don't want to get into it, you can't possibly have a credible negotiation. no, no, no. just one simple point. no, no, hang on, stephen, i won't have that. the point is that there are certain labels that are bandied around by journalists, with the greatest respect, so when they want to boil down someone‘s position on the european union,

on are you soft brexit, are you hard brexit, is it single market, is it blah, blah, blah? it actually can't be put into a sound bite, but it can be put into an attitude. internationalists, we didn't lie during the referendum, we have always been completely straight about it — we want to put the economy first. we will negotiate in the spirit of good faith, and we will negotiate properly for the sake of our country. we have to leave, but we don't need to go far. with respect, those are vague generalities, they're not things you can take into a negotiation. but you can, right now on this show, tell me whether the labour party sees the united kingdom staying in the single market. it's quite simple. no, because, i'm sorry, but as i've said to you, we're not sweeping anything off the table, but there needs to be, we have certain things that we need to come out of those negotiations with. we need to have an ability to introduce variables and manage migration. we need to be able to negotiate on that. when i first went out to brussels,

before theresa may made her speech, when she'd just become leader of the tory party, just become prime minister, so this was a year ago... she got up and she made the most extraordinary speech, saying we won't have this, we won't have that, i'm not having this, i'm not having that, and she was appealing to the far right in the tory party and shoring up her position in the tory party. that was what was going on. i went out to brussels immediately before that speech and i was talking about things like the four pillars, like how much are we talking about, what of the preoccupations in europe in relation to immigration? is there not room for more work on that, can we not build on that? how far did david cameron go? these kinds of general discussions, and then i went out immediately after theresa may's speech, and they said, "emily, there's no point even talking to you. you're out of the single market, you're out of the customs union, got out of everything. in fact, we don't need two years to negotiate with you, it's just a question of how loud you're going to slam the door and will you stick up two fingers on the way out?"

and that's the way... i'm interested, given the complexity of this process and the feeling, certainly in brussels, that it really isn't moving fast enough, who are you talking to in brussels, you and jeremy corbyn and keir starmer? we've talk to people, we've talked to people in the parliament... chief negotiator barnier? we've. .. there have been discussions, a number of us have had discussions at a number of different levels. i've not spoken to barnier, but others have. i just wonder what signals he's picking up. for example, in recent days you and other labour colleagues have made a very big deal of saying we believe, we in the labour party have the power in the house of commons to block the so—called "no deal" brexit option. i don't understand what that means. i mean, this is a negotiation between the uk government and the 27 other members of the european union. ok, so let me... so are you saying, not so much that you have the legal right in the house of commons to block a no deal brexit, but actually if a no deal brexit

is what the government proposes, you will bring down the government, a vote of no—confidence presumably, and then force a general election, on which you will fight against the concept of that no deal brexit? is that what you're actually saying? it's very difficult to predict what's going to happen next in british politics. that's an understatement. politics in britain is on steroids at the moment. everything is happening very fast and you cannot predict what's going to happen next. which is why we need clarity. yeah, and our clarity is this: we will not accept a no deal, we will not drive off a cliff, we will not let them, and there will be a vote in the commons and in the lords, when they come back with whatever agreement they've come to with the european union. we have got that as a right. but you don't have the power to stop the clock and nor does the parliament. article 50, with parliamentary approval, has been invoked. in march 2019, britain is leaving the european union. so i come back to my confusion, i simply don't understand how you can say we will block... you won't be so confused if you let me finish what i'm saying.

we have a power and it will be a meaningful vote and it will be, i think we're expecting it to be three, four, five months before we eventually leave. there will be a vote in the european parliament. there will be a vote in all kinds of different parliaments, and there will be a vote in the british parliament and we will vote against no deal. if they come back with, this is how we're leaving, we're leaving with no deal, we're leaving with no continuing relationship, the planes will not the other to leave, we will... all our goods will be subject to tariffs and red tape and everything else, all our existing relationships with the european union will be gone, we're sailing off into the mid—atla ntic, bye—bye europe... we won't agree with that. we will not vote for it and they will not be able to get that through the house of commons. so they can't come back with no deal. the pressure is on from us, but they will not be allowed to get away with it. these negotiations go, you are confident you can bring down

this government, before march 2019? we will not let them have, we will not let them get away with no deal, and the consequences will be felt. we'll see what happens then. theresa may can't pretend that we have not been clear throughout. in that scenario, just finally, because i want to move onto other issues, but finally, in that scenario, if there were to be an effort to bring down the government, it succeeded before march 2019, do you believe the labour party would fight the election that would be the consequence of that, on the basis of brexit, or actually saying to the people, you know what, we want you to have a second chance, we're going to have a second referendum, at that point? no, stephen. we've had the referendum, we're leaving the european union. categorically, there will never — never — be a second referendum? i'm talking to you about, i've explained to your listeners around the world who understand that british politics is going very, very fast. i can speak to you truthfully that the labour party position is we are not having a second referendum. that is how it is.

we have had a referendum, we have had our instructions, we are proceeding in good faith. if i may, i want to turn now to other issues. of course brexit sucks up so much of the oxygen at westminster, including your foreign affairs portfolio, but you actually made a very significant speech at the labour party conference, and because, as you say, british politics is febrile, and there is a possibility of an early election, we need to take seriously labour's proposition, generally, on foreign affairs. you say that labour is going to commit as never before to an ethical foreign policy, and you invoked the spirit of robin cook, who came up first with the phrase. what does that mean? that means that against the kind of cacophony of noise that you hear on the international stage, the voice of britain will be different. we would hope to play a leadership role. traditionally, we've kind of sailed a course between the influence of america and the influence of europe. we're leaving the european union and we don't know what on earth is going on in america — we don't agree with the president on, frankly,

nearly anything he says. you called him "crazy" not long ago it's, so presumably you're not, as you leave the european union, you're not thinking of a much closer partnership with a man you've dubbed crazy? i don't think donald trump represents america. i think that there are many good people in america, with whom we have a great deal in common and we have shared histories and families and everything else, and we would want to continue to have a good relationship with america. but it would not be possible. it would be extremely difficult to have a close relationship with donald trump, with whom we profoundly disagree. and, i don't know, surprise, surprise. on the subject of trump, because you are shadow foreign secretary it's important to know exactly how you would handle mr trump. he is now, it seems, coming to london on a "working visit" in the spring of 2018. will you and jeremy corbyn and others join labour activists

who are committed nationwide to protest against the trump visit? will you be on the protest marches with all of these activists who are talking about what they're going to do? i don't think it's just labour, actually. i think that donald trump is extraordinarily unpopular in britain, full stop. it won't be, there will be people on demonstrations who have never been on demonstrations before. will you and willjeremy corbyn? i don't know, i don't know. let's see what happens. the logic of your position is that you will be, because you've talked, whether it be in north korea, whether it be in the middle east, whether it be on a whole host of issues, you've talked about... climate change. quite. you've talked about him being extraordinarily damaging. that's right. to the world. that's right, yeah. i mean, i have ways of being able to get my voice heard and i will continue to do so, and i will do it unwaveringly and i will do it clearly. so it's just a question of what's the most appropriate way

of getting my voice heard. so this ethical foreign policy, you specifically are committed to stopping arms sales to dictatorship, authoritarian regimes around the world. you've particularly focused on saudi arabia. now there's a problem here. the company, big, big arms manufacturer bae is proposing to shed 2000 jobs. the labour party, including your colleague the shadow defence secretary, has said this is unacceptable, that bae must rethink. of course, one of its biggest customers is saudi arabia. so how can the labour party on the one hand adamantly they say arms sales stop, and on the other hand say, we will save those jobs? 0k. it is the law in britain, and indeed it is the law internationally, that we should not be selling arms to regimes that use those arms for internal repression or for international terror, right? we believe that saudi arabia have been using british weapons in yemen and have been slaughtering people,

and there have been far too many civilians who have been killed and it had happened again and again and again, and there seems to be no letting up. now, in those circumstances, it is our opinion that there should be no further arms sales to saudi arabia, until there is a proper international independent investigation into the behaviour of both sides, so that we are clear. if it has been seen that british weapons have been used for the killing of innocent civilians, we should not be selling arms to saudi arabia. i'm sorry, i misunderstood. i looked at your quotes on this issue over months and months and you seemed absolutely clear to me that you were saying, we will not sell arms to saudi arabia — period. now you're modifying it. no, no, no. no, no, no, what i have said, and i have been clear about this, we will not be selling arms to saudi arabia because of the situation in yemen, because of the situation in yemen. we do not want our arms used in yemen, given that prima facie evidence that our weapons are being used for killing

civilians, that's what our position is. we know typhoon aircraft built by bae have been used in operations against yemen, so presumably, on that basis, you know you will block further arms sales to saudi arabia. but on the more general point, robin cook wasn't just talking about individual incidents, he was saying we have to completely rework our foreign policy and we do not in future sell arms to authoritarian regimes and dictatorships. if you look around the world, britain does sell arms to a whole host of countries which right now are authoritarian. yep, yep. will you not stop those arms sales? no, no, no. so let me make this clear. in relation to saudi arabia, again, perhaps people watching this programme need to follow... there has recently been a court case where the sales of arms to saudi arabia was challenged in the courts, and we don't understand why the decision was made because there was a certain amount of evidence that was heard in open court, and a certain amount that was heard in the secret court. now, in terms of the evidence

that was heard in open court, it seemed to be pretty obvious that we shouldn't be selling arms to saudi arabia. then there was an awful lot in secret court that nobody knows, nobody knows what the evidence was or anything else, but the court has come to the decision that we should continue to sell arms to saudi arabia. now my view is that if the judge is applying the law in good faith, and i'm sure that he is, then there's clearly something wrong with the law and we need to tighten that up, because it does seem to me that it is wrong that we can have our courts upholding the sales of arms to saudi arabia in current circumstances. i will look again at the law in relation to that and i will make sure that our arms, no matter who it is we sell them to, and not used for internal repression or for the slaughter of civilians in other conflicts. you and jeremy corbyn between you have been very public in your condemnation of saudi arabia, of a bunch

of other middle eastern states, including egypt. you've also cast your eye at turkey and china in a very critical way. you have not condemned nicolas maduro and his venezuelan regime for the way in which his security forces have used violence against civilian protesters and caused the deaths of civilians. well, you'll find that i have, you'll find that i have, and you'll find that... our position is this, right, there's no secret on this, our position is... jeremy corbyn has never named nicolas maduro and said that what he has done, his regime, is unacceptable, why? i haven't, i don't spend a lot of time reading all the quotes from jeremy, but i know what the labour position is, because i wrote it and i put it out. we condemned what had happened in venezuela over the summer. did you condemn nicolas maduro in person? yes. for ordering, ordering the violent repression of civilian protests? we said that if those things had happened, he would need... what do you mean if?

if those things had happened, as we had seen on our television screens, he would be held, he would need to be held personally accountable, that's what we said. you can't be much clearer than that. it was a stronger line than came out of the foreign office. but can ijust come back to a basic principle, which is whatjeremy has done and what i do, we wish to be standing up for international human rights. we will condemn countries that breach human rights. jeremy does, consistently, and so do i. that seems to me to be very important. the other big pillar of our approach to human rights is to act multilaterally, is to not be, is to not decide i myself... this country believes x, y, and therefore we will intervene in this country or that country, we will use force in one country or another. we will not do it in that way. we will do things legally and through the united nations and by agreement, because we believe that that is the only way in which we can have a more peaceful

world, and if people start breaching those rules and laws, the world becomes less secure. emily thornberry, we have to end there, thank you for being on hardtalk. hello. it's pretty grey for many on thursday. wet weather as well. heavy showers. rain lasting through the evening and in tonight. the night. not great for driving. there is a squeeze in the isobars around low pressure bringing heavy rain through thursday and overnight. some gales with this.

this is storm brian, which was named. this is the next set of autumnal gales. but for friday, it starts grey and gloomy. fogged in northern ireland and york and further north. fog in northern ireland and york and further north. low cloud and hill fog with low pressure further south. but it is an improving as the day goes on. dry and bright weather and even sunshine. that is until this next area of low pressure comes in bringing rain to northern ireland, wales, in the south—west. strengthening wind. despite fresh air, it will be cold but bright in the afternoon. but a grey start. through the evening, rain rattling east on strengthening winds. the game might be dry, west ham, brighton. not too far away. it will rattle through quickly. gales, severe gales, quite widely in southern and western areas. for some south—eastern areas,

the first gales of the season. 60, locally, 70 around the coast. with the wet ground, that could bring down trees and disruption. very large waves indeed. that is because this storm coincides with spring tides as well. so, some dangerously large waves around the coast to be avoided. so, it does look like it will be a bit of a feature as it goes across the uk. southern areas especially. strong and gusty winds further west, eventually getting into ireland and south—west scotland. as well as that, wet weather. ahead of that, despite the wind, dry and bright weather on saturday and in eastern areas. 16 degrees. temperatures getting to about 16 degrees. it will be the wettest weather in the way of, especially with these showers. saturday night, a low. saturday night, low pressure pulling away. a westerly wind driving them east.

another showery day going into sunday. again, eastern areas are best for brighter weather. clearly, there are warnings out. and do stay up—to—date with those warnings. they're on the website. i'm sharanjit leyl in singapore, the headlines: the un says as many as 12,000 children are crossing into bangladesh every week, as they flee the violence in myanmar. i am surrounded by babies, children under the age of two months and they are all fighting for their lives. they are severely and acutely malnourished. white house chief of staff john kelly says he is stunned that donald trump has been criticised for the call he made to a military widow. i'm babita sharma in london. also in the programme. new zealand has a new prime minister, the youngest in 150 years. we will hear from the former