hello, this is bbc news with julian worricker. we'll be taking a look at tomorrow mornings papers in a moment — first the headlines at 10.30pm: ‘frank talks‘ between borisjohnson and his iranian counterpart over the imprisonment of a british woman, nazanin zaghari—ratcliffe. her husband says he's optimistic she can come home. it would be great if she came home on the plane, i think that would be beyond my wildest expectations. but in terms of realistic hopes, yeah, fingers crossed it's still possible she could be home by christmas. the met office issues amber weather warnings for large parts of england and wales, as more snow is forecast to fall tonight. more violence in israel and the palestinian territories, after president trump's decision onjerusalem. the palestinians say they will not now meet the us vice president. thousands of people gather in the streets of paris to pay tribute to the rock star johnny hallyday, who died on wednesday aged 7a. my

my guest on meet the author this week is historian norman davies who leaves his usual european territory to navigate the world in a global journey into history. hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the the papers will be bringing us tomorrow. our guests joining me tonight are the political commentator jo phillips and nigel nelson, political editor of the sunday mirror. the mail on sunday reports that theresa may had to intervene in a stand up row between the defence and foreign secretaries in the house of commons the observer leads with a warning that the eu is under pressure not to give the uk a better trade deal than other non—member

countries get after brexit. the sunday express says leading brexit supporting mps want the uk to make clear it will walk away from any trade deal they don't think is good enough. the sunday telegraph goes with tensions within the cabinet over the meaning of the commitments the prime minister made to move the brexit talks on. and the sunday mirror reports that some delivery drivers are working 1a hour days, and earning less than the minimum wage. let's dip in to some of those. plenty of brexit to mull over. take us plenty of brexit to mull over. take us to the observer, their front page talking about trade deal talks that will follow what emerged in the last few days. there's nothing like puncturing somebody‘s party balloon, is there? what a week, there we were ona is there? what a week, there we were on a knife edge, the dup looking as if they were going to blow up that

particular balloon, then everything goes fine and the observer have come up goes fine and the observer have come up with an unnamed source, an eu source close to the talks, who is an official. they go on to say, as he just said in the headlines, we have been approached by a number of nonmember countries expressing concerns and making it clear it would constitute a major problem if suddenly the uk were to get better terms than they got. you can understand where they‘ re terms than they got. you can understand where they're coming from, but frankly if this is based on one unnamed source, unofficial, it's not much of a story. that's right. the deals that have been done with other countries obviously are specifically for other countries, japan, australia, new zealand, the one that takes our fancy if we don't go the norway route would be canada. at the moment, canadajust go the norway route would be canada. at the moment, canada just goods, go the norway route would be canada. at the moment, canadajust goods, so we would really like a canada plus, so we can we would really like a canada plus, so we can have services in there. that's the most important thing, if

we don't have services we don't have much of a deal anyway. presumably the arguments, as you say, from those outside is that if we now see a better deal being done by someone else, albeit somebody a very different situation geographically and in recent terms, historically, they may want to renegotiate their own position. i think that is the argument. if you have a country that wa nts to argument. if you have a country that wants tojoin, argument. if you have a country that wants to join, who argument. if you have a country that wants tojoin, who is going through the slow process of becoming a member or partial member, or getting to the stage of becoming a member, if they see us coming out looking like we've got a jolly good deal, that might put them off. the other danger is, if it was new zealand and we ended up on world trade organisation rules, we would want a load of new zealand's land quota, so it may not actually go quite so well for other countries if we ended up in that situation. take us to the sunday telegraph, going with brexit as well, this time talking about the cabinet truce threatening to unravel. the argument here is that

michael gove and boris johnson, unravel. the argument here is that michael gove and borisjohnson, key brexiteers in cabinet, were bought off in the sense of, they would support theresa made's breakthrough on friday, on the basis that it doesn't actually mean a great deal. so we had this wonderful alignment is nothing about, and according to the telegraph, full alignment does not mean a thing. no legal basis, we don't have to care. i think that might be a bit of a misunderstanding. the whole issue of the irish border at the moment, now described as kicking mccann down the road, but what we have actually done in scott mccarron in the right part the road. the irish border should never have been discussed one. —— what we have done is got the can in the right part of the road. the question really comes down to,

do we follow eu rules as we do now, which means we followed the process, or if theresa may sallai, do we follow... we don't follow eu rules, but we arrive at the same destination? —— if theresa may gets her way. while we are a member of the eu, we must take each rule step— by—step the eu, we must take each rule step—by—step and obey it. the argument is probably can get to an open border by going a different route. is that you're reading of it? pretty much, that was fairly comprehensive! i wasn't quite sure where the can was at one point, but i'm with you otherwise! rattling around the curve in nigel‘s head... is itan around the curve in nigel‘s head... is it an irish road? an irish lane? it's now a phase two lay— by. is it an irish road? an irish lane? it's now a phase two lay-by. lovely, as long as we're not going up a cul—de—sac. as long as we're not going up a cul-de-sac. the mail on sunday, i think i may have said borisjohnson

in the intro but i didn't mean it, i meant mr hammond. this is lovely. never mind cabinet brexit truce threatens to unravel... this is gavin williams, some may not be familiar with him. he is the new defence secretary. he allegedly went head—to—head with philip hammond and had a furious bust up in the commons and the prime minister had to step in and say, stop behaving like children or cricketers and pull ourselves together and be sensible. interestingly, political editor of the mail on sunday has done a really interesting piece on gavin williamson inside, because it's quite clear there is a huge loss of bad blood between the defence secretary and philip hammond, the chancellor, who of course was a defence secretary. simon walters has done this piece where he compares gavin williamson and he is meteoric

rise —— his meteoric rise tojohn major under thatcher. he is asking the question, a month ago, the idea of gavin williamson succeeding theresa may if she stands down in march 2019 would have been dismissed asa march 2019 would have been dismissed as a joke. look at now. he has gone from wit, his feet under the mod, launched a one—man publicity blitz, picked a fight with the chancellor, he has saved two military dogs from being put down on last week said all britons who fought for isis should be killed. he is obviously out there to get the headlines. ijust wonder, i know he's a whip... or was a whip. and if you were a whip, you tend to make one or two people unhappy along the way. and you know where all the skeletons are, so you have a bit of lethbridge. i don't think williamson has had a great week. he had a

comeback, suggesting you should start shooting is fighters, wherever they may be. saving the two dogs was a plus. but he's also now lost his tarantula, because it turns out it contravenes mod pet policy, and mod pet policy is no pets. so the tarantula has had to go. his week has not ended on a high note. i'm afraid it is now so publicly known that apparently somebody in the treasury refers to him as pike, stupid boy. everyone in the mod is i'iow stupid boy. everyone in the mod is now referring to him as private pike. which the mail on sunday picked up on. with their little photo of lavender, and john murray of course, who played frasier. the sunday times. this is fast track

degrees... sorry, this is the telegraph. yes, good idea, this one. comes from joe johnson, universities minister. what he's trying to do is reduce the time people need to take their degrees from three years to two. the idea is it will save you a whole lot of money because you don't have to pay extra tuition for the la st have to pay extra tuition for the last year, that's £5,500. you would need a maintenance loan for the last year, what joe need a maintenance loan for the last year, whatjoe johnson need a maintenance loan for the last year, what joe johnson says need a maintenance loan for the last year, whatjoe johnson says is... you will also be out earning a year earlier. this is the point. he says 25,000 is what a student will save by that of sleight of hand because 19,000 of it is the average wage of graduate gets in their first year away from university. that's the assumption that you will learn that in yourfirst broadley, not a bad idea. the idea is it will be available in every subject rather than just if

is it will be available in every subject rather thanjust if you, like accountancy, law, journalism, and it gives students a chance to get through it in those two years and it would certainly be cheaper. actually, there are an awful lot of stu d e nts actually, there are an awful lot of students who are feeling that they are not getting value for money, particularly when you look at the walloping great salary that so many vice chancellors and senior university staff are getting. also for mature students, before the family commitments and things, a two year commitment, over and done with, get out early, perhaps much better. it makes you wonder why somebody under that system would still opt to do every year. the way the joe johnson puts it, it's tradition. we are so johnson puts it, it's tradition. we are so used to the idea that a university course is three years, that people have not thought about trying to do it in two. obviously, doing it in two means a lot more ha rd doing it in two means a lot more hard work, it does cost 20% more a year to go hard work, it does cost 20% more a yearto go and hard work, it does cost 20% more a year to go and do, but it does seem sensible if you could make it kind of fashionable, it is something that

could work. and employers would be happy as well. it does come in the wa ke happy as well. it does come in the wake of the national audit office report which says so many degrees, so many poor quality degrees, have left many graduates with very low earning potential. 11 people who did not go to university. i nearly went to the sunday times early but i will go there now. this is civil partnerships to go straight, this is effectively mooted for a while? exactly, it's a campaign that heterosexual couples have been campaigning for, to bring them in line with homosexual couples, because people who don't necessarily wa nt to because people who don't necessarily want to get married, heterosexual couples, up till now can't do it. this is now a private bill setting out the changes to bring everything into alignment, quite why they didn't do it in the first place, lord alone knows. it does seem as though it has good backing, and it is as we say something that has been

long campaigned for. it would also help stabilise families. it would give people who live together who previously had not wanted to get married, it would actually put them ona married, it would actually put them on a more equal footing and would make life a lot easier in terms of pensions and wills and things like that. it's also a matter of equality. illegal case. broadly, the reason heterosexual couples could not have this is because it was reserved exclusively for same—sex couples, on the basis that same—sex couples, on the basis that same—sex couples could not get married. now they can, both things should be available to all. doubters, there is one quoted, andrew williams might it's not helpful, making do with a very pale reflection of marriage. they may well think that the people living together with no protection in law as an even worse reflection, and as nigel says, it's not equal. should we finish with christmas

themed photograph? let's! ithink this was your choice. actually, my choice was a scantily clad man getting out of the sea... maybe when it's a bit later, after the watershed! the sunday telegraph has a photograph of the prime minister, with a christmas tree, and a hilarious little tag line, special branch. very good. there she is, putting what apparently... it's an ornamental stiletto. it is the tree she devoted herself, apparently, to her local church. i must say, it's actually a very nice photograph. her local church. i must say, it's actually a very nice photographm is, actually. whatever you think about code politicians, they do work very hard. you know perfectly well she's not had a minute to herself, andi she's not had a minute to herself, and i think it's very nice photograph. and she's smiling a lot,

but then you would, wouldn't you?