on the russ abbot show, is described as "a huge comedy talent". les dennis said she was a "funny, lovely friend". now on bbc news, it's time for dateline london, with jane hill. hello, and a very warm welcome to dateline london. this week we discuss the future of the iranian nuclear deal, as president trump says he'll tolerate it for just a few more months. what impact will that have inside the country? and as two key british cabinet ministers made brexit pleas in germany, was anyone in the eu listening? my guests this week: the french journalist agnes poirier,

from the magazine marrianne, the american writer and broadcaster jeffrey kofman, the iranian writer, broadcaster, and journalist amir taheri, and the british political commentator and writer adam raphael. welcome to you all. the iran nuclear deal survives, at least for a few more months. president trump has declared he will extend sanctions relief for iranjust once more, giving european countries what he called "a last chance" to fix "terrible flaws" in the 2015 deal. for example, the white house wants signatories to agree permanent restrictions on iran's uranium enrichment — currently they expire in a sunset clause in 2025. and the administration has announced 1a new targeted sanctions against individuals and entities. amir, all other signatories say this deal is working, so what does this stance

from president trump mean, do you think? he is trying to link the deal to two other issues, one being the missile programme, which is mentioned in the united nations resolution but not in the deal. don't forget that the deal is just a verbal deal, nobody signed it. nobody is really legally committed to it. it is just a political move. the second thing is, he wants to link it to human rights, which is why the iranian chiefjustice has been sanctioned under the new decision by president trump. he has made some headway with president macron of france, who has also mentioned these two issues. the idea is to force iran into new negotiations for a new package so that the nuclear issue is not treated in isolation. the idea is that you cannot have a regime behaving differently, to be nice on the nuclear issue

but bad on the missile issue and the human rights issue, holding 36 western hostages, for example, without charging most of them. there is a package of problems, and i think if trump succeeds, it would need iran to solve all of that problem. it is a country with a lot of problems with the outside world, and it is wise to tackle all of them together. jeffrey, is president trump saying this because of all the factors that amir is highlighting? or is it also a visceral reaction to a deal that was signed under president obama? it is clear that it is the latter. these are complex issues that take a lot of study. we know he is not a man

who likes to study. these are gut reactions. it is, they are bad, obama liked them, therefore i don't. there is no chess — this is checkers. the people around him agree that this is one foreign policy area where they seem united. there is a consensus that iran has got away with a lot, that there has been kowtowing to them to try to accommodate, and i think there is a sense that iran needs to be held to account, which is why there is some support for this. the complexity of this, and when you add in the demonstrations we have seen in iran in the last months or weeks, that come in conservative areas, they add a layer of complexity that makes it more difficult to navigate this. when iran says it will respond forcefully to any attempts to get it to negotiate something new, what does that mean? what is your take?

it doesn't mean anything, it's just bragging and sabre rattling, because iran is really in a very weak position at the moment. the trick that the americans are playing, and let's not do a bit of trump bashing. i don't think trump understands the situation. but the american administration is making a comeback, regardless of trump. it is a little too soft. the fact is, here is america acting unilaterally. all the european powers are horrified by what is going on. you cannot hope to be the leader of the western world if you behave in the way that america is doing. outside the missile deal and what have you, there is the whole situation in the middle east. of course, i can understand why both europeans and americans are worried by iran's role in syria, in yemen. there is a whole series,

but the way to approach it is surely not in the sort of incredibly blunt, aggressive way, ignoring all his allies. i'm a little worried by your soft approach to trump here. i don't want to participate in trump bashing. i don't care about trump. it has nothing to do with me. what i am saying is that he has not acted unilaterally. he has renewed the suspension of sanctions. so far, he hasn't done anything. he has given 120 days. he is free to suggest, and he is suggesting, let's bring a package of issues we have with iran, and instead of parking them on one side because we want to fudge the issue, let's face them. it is good for iran, too, because iran has not benefited from this deal at all, contrary to what people think. with this 120—day deadline, what do the european signatories do now?

what is their response? they think there is no better alternative to this agreement that was so long in the making, in the preparing. if trump and the american administration were so authentically genuine about actually making it better, because the issues, as you very well said, are complex, and there are other questions to be debated. it should be done behind closed doors, as it had been done. it is a question for diplomacy. the 25 countries that participated, it took about 10—15 years to get to the point with iran that we reached, and then suddenly, there is all this bragging, as you are saying, which is so counter—productive, especially when you are dealing with iran. if we want to take it further, why not? it is not by behaving...

he hasn't done anything. he has given this ultimatum of four months. because an ultimatum is a diplomatic term. it must be done through diplomatic channels. he has said, this may be the last time i sign it. that doesn't sound like an ultimatum? you have to have a back—up plan. now i become the defender of trump! it's not the intention. we want your analysis. i have nothing to do with trump or anything, i am iranian. he is suggesting that iran is the cause of many problems. we don't deny that! to that point, then... what could change inside iran? as i said, macron has agreed. the british at the moment

are out because they are obsessed with brexit. the italians have no government, nor do the germans. so, he is saying, let's bring iran to the negotiating table. about the middle east, the intervention in other arab countries, support for terrorism, holding western hostages. all these things, and it would be good for iran, too. once the underbrush is cleared, then they can really lift sanctions on iran. they haven't lifted sanctions on iran. the iranian embassy in london cannot open a bank account in london. it is forced to pay its staff in cash. did you realise that? this is what trump is saying. you say you don't like it, trump is crazy, he is a sexual predator or whatever. .. that is not what we're here to discuss. will it help ordinary people in iran? we talked a lot about the protests, a lot of it to do with the economy, several thousand people

still imprisoned, perhaps more. to your point, what could what could benefit the very young population, all those people who don't have a job, those fundamentals of life, how could that change? the problem with iran is that you have two countries. it is iran as a revolution, and iran as a nation state. one day, iran must decide to become a nation again and not be a vehicle for exporting revolution. in that case, iran has no problem with anybody. it is the only country in the middle east with defined borders, the only one. the only country in the middle east that has not been at war with anybody for 400 years, apart from the iraqi invasion. we have no problem with anybody. the problem we have is because we want to make the rest of the middle east... we don't share a border

or compete over markets or access to raw materials. we have 2 million iranians living in the united states. we always had good relations with them, but we have become the number—one enemy of the united states because of the revolutionary side of us. israel have been our friends for ever, since we freed the jews, and now we have become enemies of israel. i never heard anybody say anything bad aboutjews in iran, and there is no anti—semitism in iran, and now we become the most anti—israeli. this doesn't represent iran. if it can come back as a nation, with its culture, history, resources, its 80 million population, it would be a fantastic thing for everybody.

there will be an enormous twitter debate about all of this, but we will be coming back in future, for sure. there is more to discuss this week, and we must move on. we already mentioned brexit. you can't ignore it this week. two british cabinet ministers who stayed in place after this week's government reshuffle headed to germany midweek to make separate pleas about brexit. the chancellor, philip hammond, and the secretary of state for exiting the eu, david davis, urged their respective audiences to remember the importance of london's financial services sector. they told a german newspaper it makes no sense to put in place unnecessary barriers to trade after britain has left the eu. agnes, britain seems to want a bespoke trade deal — was anyone listening? they were pretty busy in germany this week. i don't know why they chose that

particular week to go. and it was supposed to be a three—day charm offensive. that was a hell of a three—day charm offensive, because they ended up telling the german newspapers that eu leaders should not want to continue punishing, that they were paranoid and backward looking. they said, remember the financial crisis, and we don't want another one, therefore it behoves all european countries to remain as one in terms of financial services. philip hammond said something new, which is bewildering, but at least it's something new to bring to the brexit debate, saying, actually, it is for europe to make an offer, to tell us what you can bring to the table. it is not necessarily for britain to tell you, europe, what we want. then it is what we call a conversation between deaf and mute people.

the german business leaders they met in berlin said, hang on a minute, we don't know what britain wants. one day, it is a norway—style agreement, another time it is canada plus, plus, plus, trade agreement with financial services. they would say they did go to germany knowing what they wanted — stability in financial services, one of the things that brings the most money into the uk. it is key to the british economy, but then michel barnier, who is the face and voice of the 27 eu member states, for the moment, he said that the city of london and the banks operating there will lose their passporting rights. that hasn't changed, so now it is a question for the british government and therefore the tory party to come together and decide what they want

in order to have just one line. they go to brussels and say, ok, this is the kind of agreement. it is a total mess, isn't it? the new thing is that we now seem to be willing to pay to secure additional rights for our financial services, so we would have to pay a financial penalty. whether any of this can be sold in the british parliament or to the british people, i have no idea. but it is a fantastic mess. what is interesting to me is that, day by day, reality begins to intrude into these negotiations. so, the french are only too keen to take over our financial services. i can see mr macron rubbing his hands at this very moment. the fact is, this country, it's not mad, in my view, never has been and won't be now, and the conservative party, in theory, should represent the interests of business. that is what it has traditionally been about. but business won't put up

with the sort of line that the conservative party now appears to be destined for. i think the party will have to start adjusting, and indeed the parliament and the prime minister, or we are going to go in for a most fantastic bust—up. i am pessimistic about what is going on. what does that mean, what will they do? doesn't business keep coming back and saying, we need clarity, we can't plan x number of years ahead without clarity? agnes makes a fair point because there is no clarity in the government or unity in the conservative party. until they can reach an agreed view, it is impossible to put forward a british position. we really are in a mess here, and i can understand the irritability, and indeed the impatience, of our european partners, or former partners, with the british position. and it is caused by a political crisis within the government.

it is so easy to muddle up the conservative party and the nation, but they are two separate things. if you talk to conservatives, they regard them as the same, and that is one of the real problems that we face. somehow, the tory party has got to sort itself out, and it's got to actually begin to realise what it is about and what can unify it. otherwise, we are in a total mess. i am very pessimistic. i sometimes have that pessimism. sometimes, i wonder if this isjust the disorganised chaos of the political process. sometimes, when we are in the midst of these kind of storms, you think, my gosh, it is going to hell in a hand basket, but this is often how politics works, and it takes this kind of brinkmanship, uncertainty and bargaining to sometimes lead to a resolution. the concern is that we have just over a year to resolve this. less than that — october, because then you have a six—month ratification process.

we are talking until october. this autumn. yes. there are two other themes that came out. one is that the pound went to its highest level since the referendum. it was $1.37? something like that. partly in response to apparent statements, or indications, from france and holland... spain. spain, pardon me. that they would be open to a soft brexit, which somehow encouraged the markets here and gave business a sense that there may be a way out. then this very unexpected comment from nigel farage, saying, maybe we should have a second referendum, which i think really is extraordinary, the idea that the man who really initiated this whole momentum now wants to go back to the people, potentially, for another one. me thinks it has to do more with him than with brexit, now that his own contact

in the white house, steve bannon, has been brushed aside and he has to find a new role in life. there are so many currents now, and it does become incredibly difficult to wonder whether this will lead to something stable, or whether we will count these days down and still be talking in this disorganised fashion. i want to pick up on something that you were saying about the conservative party. we had a reshuffle this week that was quite extraordinary, and you talk to people at westminster all the time. for international viewers who didn't follow it, we had a health secretary who apparently was going to be given anotherjob and managed to persuade the prime minister to not only stay in this job but to add another title to it. another cabinet minister who was told she was going somewhere else dug her heels in, spent three hours in downing street and came out on the backbenches instead. what does that tell us about theresa may's authority,

how much of it was tied up with brexit? it has been an extraordinary week. it has. shambolic is the only thing you can make of this reshuffle. normally it is a time of the utmost prime ministerial power. unfortunately, this one... i don't know, really... she's badly served by some of the people around her. there appears to be no proper preparation for a reshuffle. the idea that somehow... jeremy hunt has been a close colleague of hers for over five years. and for longer than that. she must have known exactly where his position was, or she should have done. the idea that somehow, cold on the day, he says, i'm digging in, just is total lack of preparation, so you feel that it is unprofessional, that she doesn't have the skills to manage her party, that she is very, very weak indeed, and she is only propped up there because they can't

agree between themselves, the tory party, at the moment, because they have in such crisis, on who should be her successor. i do take jeffery's point that politics often does seem to be a very convoluted, fractional affair, and in the end it all resolves itself. we are going through a period of politics in this country which is really unusual, and yes, there may be a resolution at the end of the day, but my goodness, it will be difficult to get to. the view from the continent of britain is sadness. this reshuffle is shambolic, but it feels as if we should send a rescue mission to downing street. here is a political prisoner who is trapped by her own troops. send the sas! do something. but it's sad, in the end. we can laugh, but it's sad, because as a result, britain is in a state of paralysis. all right.

we can't leave without discussing the enormous offence he has caused with comments made during a bi—partisan oval office meeting about immigration laws. donald trump himself denies using the offensive word beginning with s, though concedes the language he used to describe various african countries, and others, was "tough". jeffrey, the un didn't say the language was tough, they said it was racist. jane, are you putting me in a position of using a word on the bbc that...? entirely your choice! i don't know what the bbc censors think about it. this is the president of the united states. i did not think i would have to repeat this word on air as a journalist. he called these countries shitholes. it is so deeply offensive. whatever you think of the man,

it is unthinkable that you can defend that kind of talk from a world leader. i think it is also offensive when you think of the tradition of america, give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses. let's be honest, most of america was settled from countries that were at the time could have been described with the same word. whether it be the european countries in the 19th century orjust after the war, ireland in the 19th century — these countries were, by donald trump's definition, much the same. that is what has built the great country. so it isjust mind—numbing to know how to respond. we are used to a year of bellicose language from donald trump, to his extraordinary use of social media in the small hours of morning — should we be surprised or is there something more worrying about it? first of all, trump denies having said that. that precise word.

he said he used tough language, but there are multiple people who were in the room. we have to give him the benefit of the doubt. i think not, because a democratic senator was there. so we give the democratic senator the benefit of the doubt. those who know american language know that this s word is part of the routine vocabulary of americans, but when it comes to foreigners, including the portuguese secretary—general of the un, sounds terrible. the french, germans and other countries have certain words. except the president doesn't say that word. it is part of the language of daily life, and american literature is full of f words and s words. he has form in this area, when he described the racists

in south carolina, saying there was fault on both sides. he comes with form. again, i don't want to defend trump. it is none of my business. i am saying that we have to put things in context, and i am against ideas that become fashionable. a fashionable idea is to hit trump, so i'm against it. if tomorrow the fashionable idea is... it is not fashion, it is fact. we have a president of the free world... it is absolute indignity personified. i think we should stop talking about him until the american people remove him from power in a peaceful, democratic way. that is their business. it is not fair to dismiss this as fashionable. what he did was to dismiss... he used that word against el salvador, haiti and africa,

and said, we need more norwegians. that is, by any definition, a white supremacist agenda of, we need more scandinavian—looking people, fewer of those others. when you reduce this to what it really means, that is what he was saying. gentlemen, ladies, we will leave our largely civilised discussion there. very good to see you all again. that's all we have time for this week. do join us again next week — same time, same place. but for now, thank you for watching, and goodbye. hello there. a big weather change on the way for next week, but for most today, if you saw the sunshine, you were very, very lucky.

for most, it was grey skies all the way, whether you were in norfolk or the western coast of scotland. and across some parts of western scotland, you also see a little bit of rain so far, coming courtesy of this weather front. it has been sitting across the same areas through this afternoon. it will continue to be so as well. there is not enough wind to push it through in either direction. a gentle south—easterly wind may just nudge it a bit further westwards as we go into tonight. but patchy rain and drizzle will continue, turning lighter and lighter, though, as we go through the night, but sitting with plenty of cloud in the skies overhead. most places will stay frost free. the odd break here and will lead to a total frost, some mist and fog too into sunday morning. but yes, a very familiar sky colour to greet the day for most of you, another grey day, at least to begin with. we will see a few more breaks appear here and there, maybe parts of northern england, wales, the south west, although we do start with lots of cloud and something brighter at times in scotland and northern ireland ahead of a strengthening breeze. slightly cooler day tomorrow compared with today, but temperatures nothing untoward for the time of year. but the big change, i mentioned, it comes courtesy of some very wet and very windy weather spreading

across scotland and northern ireland through tomorrow evening. we could see gusts of wind across some northern and western areas, 60, maybe 70 mph, strong to gale force winds, still with that band of rain as it reaches the south east of the country as we go into first light on monday morning. but what it is bringing about, ok, it is sweeping away some of the grey, but it is also introducing much, much colder air and winds that come all the way down from greenland and northern canada. so, here we go, monday, it is going to take a gradual process. we begin wet for the morning commuters across east anglia and the south east. notjust wet and windy — brighter skies will develop some sunny spells, but a scattering of showers, those showers heavy, thundery with hail mixed in, and as cold air starts do take place and push further south and east into tuesday, the showers we can see just about anywhere across the uk, they will be fairly frequent. but in the north and the west, mainly of sleet and snow. and then, we continue with our generally north—westerly airflow through wednesday into thursday, but watch this, a bit of uncertainty where it is going to track, but whilst it could bring some snow in the north, some strong winds on the south.

one crumb of comfort — it will push through very, very quickly. overall, though, we will have to keep an eye on that one, but for next week, get ready for some colder air, strong winds for much of the week and a little bit of snow too.