hello again. this is bbc news, with me ben brown — our latest headlines: afghan security forces regain control of a hotel in kabul after it was seized by gunmen — six civilians died and 160 others were rescued. the taliban says it carried out the attack. the here, an eight—year—old girl has been stabbed to death in the west midlands, in what police are calling a ‘domestic incident.‘ the ukip leader henry bolton tells the bbc it's not right for the party's ruling committee tojudge him on his personal life — an emergency meeting on his future is being held this afternoon. people in england with dementia and autism could soon be entitled to blue badge parking permits, meaning they can park for free. now, in a bbc news special, the french president emmanuel macron talks to andrew marr about france's relationship with the uk, and about brexit and the future of the eu. i'm here at government house at the royal military academy,

sandhurst, outside london, where the french president emmanuel macron has just been holding talks with the british prime minister theresa may about defence and immigration. of course, in the context of brexit, after those talks were over, i sat down with president macron to discuss those issues, but also france's role in the wider world, with china, and of course with president trump. mr president, we're sitting here at sandhurst at the heart of british military culture, and you've just come to a new military agreement. can i start by asking you what you've agreed with theresa may? we agreed a series of cooperations. cooperation in terms of capacities, on future projects, on new capacities for new weapons in the future, which represent very huge investments, but it is very important

because we have a very strong relationship in terms of defence. that's a bilateral relationship, nothing to do with brexit. is that because the russians are tooling up with new weapons all the time, and there is a threat from the east, or what? notjust a threat from the east — we have a series of security issues. obviously we have security issues coming from the east, but we have to deal with the middle east, in africa with the war against terrorism, and that is why we decided this cooperation in terms of capacities and a series of new weapons, because that is very important from a strategic and personal point of view. we decided on our side to commit ourselves in 2019 for cooperation in estonia, in the framework of nato, so that's a series of very concrete cooperations in the short run, because we have the same vision of security and collective threats. let let me ask, if i may, about the wider picture.

do you think it's possible, in theresa may's words, for britain to have a deep and special relationship with the eu after brexit? i do hope so. i do hope, because i think it will be good for the eu and for the uk. she said a deep relationship, however. if the uk, and i imagine yourview is if the uk is not going to be a member of the customs union or the single market, or accept the four freedoms, it can't be that deep? look, it will be by definition less deep than today, because the deepest possible relationship is being a member of the european union, so i think you have to be lucid and you have to be fair with people. as you decided to leave, you cannot be part of the single market, but in terms of the nature of the negotiation, you can have some deeper relations than some others. for instance, we have a deeper relation with norway than the one we have with canada, so it depends on the outcome of the negotiation, but for sure —

except if you change your mind — but you will not be part of the single market, as you will not be part of the european union. and in concrete terms let's talk about what that might mean. so for instance there are a lot of people in this country who say, well, not much of the british economy is actually directly trading with the eu. that bit of the british economy could divert, but bits of the british economy that are trading with it that bit of the british economy could diverge, but bits of the british economy that are trading with it the eu will converge. in other words, we can have a sophisticated bespoke deal specially for britain. now, you said in the past you can have canada, or you can have norway, but you can't have your own special deal. is that really fair, given how long britain has been part of the year? no, is not a question of being fairorunfair. i take that as a reference, but for sure you will have your own

solution, and my willingness... so there will be a bespoke special solution for britain? sure, but i take these two references, because this special way should be consistent with the preservation of the single market and our collective interests. and you should understand that you cannot by definition have the full access to the single market if you don't tick the box, and to get full access to the single market you need to contribute to the budget, and you have to accept... the freedoms. the freedoms, and the four pillars. and you have to accept that jurisdiction. as soon as you decide not to join these preconditions, it's not a full access. so it's something perhaps between this full access and a trade agreement. but what is important is not to make people think or believe that it's possible to have... your cake and eat it? exactly. so when i talk to david davis, our main brexit negotiator, and i say, what does britain really want out of this, david? and he says, we want

canada plus plus plus, and by "plus plus plus" he means a deal on services, because so much of the uk economy is based on services in general and on the city in particular. from what you've said today, i guess that you don't believe we can have any special deal involving the city? i mean, you don'tjust speak about services but you speak about financial services. cooking a deal is the job of michel barnier. we have a very dedicated organisation. i don't want to start a negotiation country by country. it would be ridiculous. and the best way to dismantle the whole eu. i think what we have to do, and what we will do, is firs to take the decision in march regarding the mandate we want to give to michel barnier for the negotiations. after that, he will have to negotiate, with your negotiator. and they will decide, and it depends on the proposals made by the uk, but, for sure, full access for financial services to the single

market is not feasible, given the functioning of the single market. so by definition it's not a full access. so in concrete terms some form of passporting deal is off the table in these negotiations, as far as you're concerned? i'm not the one to negotiate, and i don't want to close doors, but it depends on what you're ready to put on the table, in terms of preconditions. if you respect the precondition to get access to the single market, it's feasible. but there is no cherry picking with the single market. i mean, if i had to wrap up the full philosophy, no cherry picking of the single market, because it's not feasible. because otherwise that's the dismantling of the single market, and for me it's one of the pillars of the european union, and something you loved in the past. and you say that you are not negotiating, and that's absolutely right, but when you went to china, for instance, you were very much saying that one

of the consequences of brexit, you thought, was to reaffirm paris's centrality in the financial system and france has made a very very strong pitch to british financial institutions to come over to paris. how's it going? look, in china i didn't speak about brexit, and i didn't — i would say — push any message due to brexit. ifully disagree... i think for china, as i look at europe, we have to be very much coordinated. and we are linked and we are closely linked on nuclear and a series of topics which are very important for both of us vis—a—vis china. secondly, in terms of european dialogue on financial services, but for sure — for sure, we want to attract the maximum activity. why? because this decision has an impact for a lot of players. so a lot of players will decide to be part of the eu and the eurozone, and have to choose between different countries so there is a competition between different countries.

of course there is. the case, i suppose... and you had the decision regarding the regulator, so as you leave you lost this regulator. i suppose the case for the city is that it has built up a very big part of the whole global financial system, and to unplug the city from the rest of the european financial structure is a big risk and a danger? look, i think — first of all it is absolutely not my willingness and i think not reasonable perspective. secondly, it is something to taken into consideration by your negotiator, and your own proposals. but my willingness is not precisely to unplug, as you say, the british city. i think it doesn't make sense. because it's part of the whole financing of our european union. but, for sure, if there is no change in terms of full access to the financial single market, it doesn't make sense for the others.

so i want to preserve what we created post—world war, and what we created is this sophisticated organisation called the european union, which is for the very first time not a hegemony of one over the others, but a very concrete democratic, economic construction. why do you think the british voted to leave this sophisticated structure? look, i'm not the one to judge or to comment on the decision of your people, but my interpretation is that a lot of losers of this new globalisation and this new system suddenly decided that it was no more for them. you always take a risk when you have such a referendum — just yes or no in a very complicated context. if france had had a referendum it might have had the same result? probably. in a similar context, but our context was very different, so i don't want to make any...

i mean, to take any bets, but i would have definitely fought very hard to win, but i think it's a mistake when you just ask yes or no, when you don't ask people how to improve the situation, and to explain how to improve it. that's why i do believe in these conventions we will organise to better associate people. on to the brexit for my understanding is that working classes and middle-class, and especially the oldest in your country —— but on the brexit vote, my understanding. they decided it was not in their favour, my understanding. they decided it was not in theirfavour, and my understanding. they decided it was not in their favour, and that the adjustments made by both the eu and globalisation, because for me it was a mixture of both, they decided it was not in their favour. which means what? firstly, it is not sustainable to have an unbalanced

organisation. probably, when i look at your debate, it was too favourable just for the city and less for the rest of the country, so i'm very much... surely it was about europe as well? secondly, i think one of the reasons was precisely an organisation of our european union probably which goes too far in terms of freedom without cohesion, towards the free market without any rules and any conversions, and i have to say that your government had some responsibility with it. too liberal, perhaps? ten years ago, thinking about the free market clearly without any regulation. all of your people saying the hungarian workers oi’ people saying the hungarian workers or the polish workers are much more favoured than i am, it was exactly the debate we had in france 10—15

yea rs the debate we had in france 10—15 years ago against some directors that a lot of your government pushed at the time saying, guys, you are not the free market. i do believe in the free market, i do believe in a market economy, but we need regulation and convergence, which means that what we lost in recent yea rs means that what we lost in recent years in europe, that is the convergence and that stage so it is no more sustainable to have some countries taking money from the european union, in order to converge, then using this money to divert. to reduce their corporate taxes. so that is why... sorry to interrupt, but your vision seems to me to bea interrupt, but your vision seems to me to be a deepening europe, as a response to this. you want a single financial minister, more european taxes, more done at the centre. again, is that not a terrible risk? how many european people look at this and say it is too far away already, they don't feel engaged? no, because it is notjust my view.

firstly i think we need to have a much more protective europe. from the very beginning i am totally dedicated to making our europe more protective to our people. what i do believe is that first europe should not meanjust believe is that first europe should not mean just adapting yourself when you are part of the working class or the middle—class, but the best answer, we have collective risks and threats. europe is something which will protect you, on digital, the environment, migration, collective security, and a fair organisation. but i would see in the midst of long run, my view of europe is the following. i do believe we have a european union, and we will be, u nfortu nately, european union, and we will be, unfortunately, 27. inevitably, definitely? it depends on you. i do respect this vote. i do regret it, andi respect this vote. i do regret it, and i would love to welcome you again. ican and i would love to welcome you again. i can see... and i would love to welcome you again. ican see... eurovision... and i would love to welcome you

again. i can see... eurovision... my vision, in the very short run —— your vision. to be much more concrete, and less bureaucratic, to protect people and address their issues and our collective issues, concrete issues. but we have to prepare for a new organisation which could be the following. there will be 27 of us at eu level, and for me the mid to long run by definition is to gather some countries, within or in some corporation with this eu, let's say, but it will enlarge precisely to be and that will be a counterpart of turkey or russia. i don't know whether through corporation or through joining, but it should have a pillar of the single market, common values and rights, to be defended. that is the first circle. and then a series of inner circles. by and then a series of inner circles. by definition, and it is already the

case with the schengen agreement. but on defence, migration. for me the core of europe, the very inner circle, is an open avant—garde, where we decide to have a much stronger integration and to work very closely together in strategic and economic terms, that is my view. but it is notjust... let and economic terms, that is my view. but it is notjust. .. let me move on, ifi but it is notjust. .. let me move on, if i may. iwant to but it is notjust. .. let me move on, if i may. i want to ask you about france. more sovereignty, more unity, more democracy, the recipe for success in europe. if you lose your sovereignty and you don't protect people, they don't believe in you. if you are not based on a democratic approach they will not follow you. if you are not following this unity with consistency and convergence, they will leave. you said france is back. what did you mean? i mean we are delivering reforms which seemed impossible for decades. we fixed a series of internal difficulties, and we increased our capacity to produce

and be competitive. this is for me the pillar, because when we are not credible at home there is no chance to be credible outside. you speak about values which presumably must involve freedom of the press and human rights and so forth. did you raise those with the chinese president when you were speaking to him? arrested with all the leaders i met, and that's why. —— i raised it with all the leaders i met. i do thisjob in france in order to be launched europe, for you to understand the full picture. the job would make in france is good for france. i am sure in the coming yea rs we france. i am sure in the coming years we will improve our figures in terms of employment, reduce our deficit and so on. that's it. it allows me to be more credible at european level and convincing, especially to germany, to work together to relaunch this new europe. thirdly, it allows us to be more credible at international scale. on different subjects,

different topics, taking leadership against climate change, on lebanon on and several issues. on human rights, i always raise it. on climate change, since you mention it. ijust wanted climate change, since you mention it. i just wanted to... very quickly. on human rights, taking the spot, i raised human rights directly with all the leaders. in china it is absolutely counter—productive to raise it, because, i mean, the system, the regime, the presidency, it is not in a situation or in a current environment... it is not going to help, you think?” current environment... it is not going to help, you think? i believe it is totally current productive so what i did was have a direct discussion. we have tried to discuss this issue. we decided an organisation and i provided, i would say, visibility and the ability for him to be sure that this is not diplomacy in front of the camera, so thatis diplomacy in front of the camera, so that is it. it is different when i speak with president erica won

because we had hours of discussion on human rights in specific situations —— when i spoke with president erdogan. no matter what you thought when you got up in the morning, and you read what president trump, andi morning, and you read what president trump, and i can't say the word, what he said about certain african countries, he denies it but a lot of people say he used that word, and among the african countries outraged and offended by that were many french—speaking countries in africa. i wonder, did you sure there outrage? for sure. -- did you share their outrage? it is not a word you can use. and if we want precisely to build peace and development in this country, and a respectful relationship... you can't use those kind of words. but by definition, andi kind of words. but by definition, and i think a lot of our issues, in the middle east and africa, it is due to a lot of frustrations due to a lot of past humiliations, and we

have to understand that. and i do believe... we have to respect all the countries. that is what we owe them, and that is much more efficient. i have a very direct relationship with president trump, we have a very good relationship. you sat down for dinner with him at the top of the eiffel tower. i wondered what you make of him as person, having come across him closely? he's not a politician. -- not a classical politician. firstly, he was elected by the people in the united states, and that is a great country. so i want to work with them andi country. so i want to work with them and i think we have built a very strong relationship. we disagree on several topics. i call him very regularly. i am always extremely direct anne frank. sometimes i managed to convince them, sometimes i feel. —— i am

managed to convince them, sometimes ifeel. —— i am always managed to convince them, sometimes i feel. —— i am always very direct and frank. i am asking you... speaking about the mix of personal and political reaction, and i think it is not feasible when you are president of the republic like the usa. the reason i am asking, with a slight smile on my face but it is very serious, when you have something like the north korean situation, and trump says my nuclear button is bigger than yours, and a lot of people in the world think this is slightly unhinged and very dangerous. yes, but what is the a nswer to dangerous. yes, but what is the answer to that? just to say we have to work very closely and seriously, to work very closely and seriously, to force north korea to come back to the negotiating table. we have to follow the un sanctions and implement them, and the critical country for delivery on this is

china, and that is what we discussed there with the president. it is just to calm down everybody. you think there is any chance at all of persuading the americans to come back to the table on the paris climate change agreement? firstly i don't think there is any option to come back to the negotiating table with the paris agreement. i've always been very clear. it is negotiated and signed. it is just clear. it is negotiated and signed. it isjust deciding clear. it is negotiated and signed. it is just deciding to sign what is done. to sign it, then, do you think they can? more than 180 countries signed and are being ratified. come on. we will not renegotiate for one person. i believe it is a big mistake. i told person. i believe it is a big mistake. itold him, but there person. i believe it is a big mistake. i told him, but there is no new negotiation. you join, or you don't. china decided to remain in the loop, and we will deliver. i think we have to accelerate, but what i see is that the private sector, and states in the usa, they

are following this line, trying to comply with the agreement, so we will do it. i think it is a mistake but there will be no new negotiation, but i hope an option to join the treaty as negotiated. very final question. you said you would bea final question. you said you would be a jupiter like president. what did you mean? i thinki never be a jupiter like president. what did you mean? i think i never use the expression like that when i was asked, but you know how it goes, people just capture one word and ta ke people just capture one word and take it without the context. i think i was just making a take it without the context. i think i wasjust making a comment take it without the context. i think i was just making a comment with the full context, but i meant when you present you have to preside. it is different from governing. you have to avoid permanent comments, to avoid the sort of day—to—day presence without strong decisions. you need to have a bit of ela, a bit of ‘gloire'. ..

you need to have a bit of ela, a bit of 'gloire'. .. i would say you you need to have a bit of ela, a bit of 'gloire'... i would say you need efficiency, humanity, authority —— elan. that is why it is not compatible with jupiter or anything like that. but what is important to me and the message i wanted to say, our credibility is to explain what we wa nt our credibility is to explain what we want to do, to deliver, to change the country and prepare the country for the new century. that is what we are doing in france because that is are doing in france because that is a precondition to success in europe. and our role is to help to build peace everywhere in this world. that's it. that's myjob. peace everywhere in this world. that's it. that's my job. present macron, thank you very much indeed. thank you very much. a wintry mix of weather out there

and no doubt it will cause some problems today with travel, some disruption as well. not a novel lot and this picture depicts a typical amount many of us will get through today. some of us are little others none at all. it is a real nightmare trying to predict exactly where the snow will fall and exactly how much. we have a battle of mild and cold. living in the south, —13 in the highlands of scotland, a weather front moving through this zone of cold and warm battling, and we have that dose of snow today —— ii degrees in the south. this is where we will see most of the snow, 10—15 centimetres, the southern uplands, throughout yorkshire as well, and you can see there is an area where the rain is turning to snow and the store turning to rain, which ever way you want to look at it. —— the snow turning to rain. because the temperatures are close to freezing, and it was two there, bournemouth,

ten, but it is difficult to pinpoint exactly which pieces of snow will they were so it is virtually impossible. suffice to say it is across england today we will see that spell of rain and snow mixing at almost any time during the day. this evening, a snapshot from seven o'clock, temperatures starting to rise, so eventually what will have been snow will be rain and through the course of the night the temperatures will probably stabilise a little and it will stay above freezing, three, 4 degrees across the heart of the uk, close to double figures across the south. a bit of rain to wake us up in the morning for the southern counties, then that will be swiftly out of the way and a relatively bright day, a few showers here and there, breezy around the coast but on balance a much better day in terms of the weather overall for much of the country. on tuesday, big area of low pressure stretching a newfoundland, big area of low pressure stretching all j newfoundland, big area of low pressure stretching all 1’s“? is banana; i

big area of low pressure stretching all t) the is iuzndland, i big area of low pressure stretching direction. j) the is iuzndland, i big area of low pressure stretching direction. this 1e is iuzndland, i big area of low pressure stretching direction. this is is iuzndland,fi was {a g elsi??? 31? ;e;§§;g1e3gfigg' but i think is 59435 too bad for the time of the not too bad for the time of the year, with some rain around as well. soi year, with some rain around as well. so i mixed bag on the way next week, milder but in the short term we have snow on the way for the next few hours or so and then that will eventually clear away. this is bbc news. i'm ben brown. the headlines at midday. i'm ben brown. afghan security forces regain control of a hotel in kabul after it was seized by gunmen. an emergency meeting on his future is being held this afternoon.

it's time the party moves on and the national executive needs to recognise that by pursuing an action against me, they are actually undermining the party further. theresa may is to set out plans to crack down on bosses who enrich themselves while jeopardising their workers' pensions. ican i can live in london