this is bbc news. let's you live now team gb have just appeared. let's now to the closing ceremony. everyone has really enjoyed the

games. hello, and a very warm welcome to dateline london. i'm carrie gracie. this week we look at the continuing carnage in syria, and discuss the latest twists in the brexit debate. my guests this week: the conservative political commentator alex deane, marc roche of le point, the american writer and broadcaster jeffrey kofman, and the columnist for the gulf based newspaper the national, and arab weekly rashmee roshann lall. barrel bombs, air strikes and shelling by syrian government forces have killed nearly 500 people this week, many of them children. eastern ghouta the beseiged area on the edge of the syrian capital damascus, has been described

as "hell on earth". the un has called for a cease fire. rashmee, you've been following this nightmare, do you see an end to the suffering of people in syria? i think the response to that question should certainly not be along the lines of what the united nations children's fund issued. its institutional heart was so heavy that it could not describe the suffering of the people of eastern ghouta, and it simply issued a blank statement, saying the truth is beyond language, there is nothing further to say. i would say, one has to recognise words can have the quality of deeds. let's look at the facts, let's use words to do that. the facts on the ground are, syrian's president bashar al—assad, as long as he checks in with moscow, he can pretty much do what ever he wants in the country.

as long as he has robust foreign support. there has been a stand—off with the un with much of the world trying desperately to get this very small concession which is a humanitarian halt to the siege and starve strategy that assad is using. they can't do it because the russians are stopping it. the facts on the ground are that the syrian regime is there, it's not going away, and one finds it's very hard to understand the rational basis of what some trump administration officials describe as "a return of the syrian state", not return of the syrian regime, kind of approach. they are not going anywhere, it can end if we recognise the facts on the ground. you are a north american, jeffrey, what's your view on the trump administration recognising facts on the ground? we saw a year ago in april

when the sarin gas was used, that was the red line in the sand, and to trump's credit he actually responded. the air strikes destroyed 20% of the syrian air force. he has calculated that there is a red line, as long as i don't drop sarin, i can drop chlorine, these huge bombs, all sorts of carnage. but if i don't do chemical warfare per se, i can get away with it. that is what has happened. this will not be solved with american leadership. america is in the midst of a nervous breakdown, it is to internal looking right now to care about this. i despair because i don't see how this will work. russia is playing chess, the rest of the world is playing checkers. of course we can hope in some way there must be a solution, i struggle to see where it is. france, long experienced in the middle east, the french pushing hard for that un

security council resolution. is there a game of chess that can be turned into checkers or vice versa? the problem is that in the security council, russia, who has a veto and is a permanent member, who knows very well the un because of the cold war, is making the situation impossible. the only hope with america out of the game is france. and britain. they have one armament they can use against the assad regime. it's russia. it's hardening the sanctions, and if you think that there are lots of putin's friends who have property in britain, property in france, on the cote d'azur, here the chelsea football club, the owner is close, so they could seize all this. put britain and france love russian money, so they won't be any help.

at least on a moral issue, france and britain, are showing the way. it's no accident all of us have mentioned russia and their involvement in the assad regime. long gone are the days when president obama mocked mitt romney for calling russia the threat of the future. here i think criticism of russia is very well founded. as well as russia's formal forces on the ground in syria, which are significant, we see the operation of companies like wagner pmc, private military companies, mercenaries to you and me, on the ground embedded in assad's forces, fighting the kurdish anti—assad forces. why this matters so much, fighting against the americans directly, we are seeing russians, albeit not in russian uniform,

but it seems with the blessing of the kremlin in operation of 2500 of them, fighting alongside assad's forces directly against americans. it's an incredibly dangerous situation, so it's notjust about what happens in syria to solve it, also the potential risk of americans and russians facing directly. earlier this month we saw a confrontation between russian and american forces in which the western side claims 100 russians died, and the kremlin adits admits several dozen did. we get dragged into a conflict in a way we saw for much of the 20th century, bad news. i think we must understand that for russia there is a lot at stake here. syria is strategically so important. the only russian mediterranean base is there, they want to keep their foothold geopolitically in this area. the us is focused elsewhere. presumably for the russians, it stands to reason that they want to give their syrian allies time

to finish off the rebels on the edge of damascus. there are a lots of arguments that say we should prevent the collapse of the syrian state. libya is not a shining template, nobody wants to go there. this is not about rewarding bad behaviour or giving carte blanche to callous leaders, it is about if we care about the suffering of the syrian people, we want it to stop. the trouble is, mark's point was the french and british responsibility applies. we were for and against assad, now we are not sure. 0ur foreign policy seems to be that he should go, but on balance we would rather the state did not collapse. a contradiction. the sanctions, they cannot put up with more sanctions. the economy is doing badly. surely the point is we need to let the syrian people out of this misery

and, do i understand correctly, you are basically saying at some point, the syrian government should be assisting in finishing this in as civil a way as possible? basically, what we are understanding is there maybe a arrangement with mr assad, we may talk about that at some point. maybe because the russians have him by the short and curlies, let the situation get... if people can help, help. if not, get the message and get out. you bring up libya and i covered libya for abc news. the failed state solution is one we all fear now. and iraq is very much like that as well. what i worry about that is it's easier to let things bump along and let the people of syria suffer horrendously than it is to find a long—term solution.

particularly in today's world, where you can talk about this concept of empathy fatigue, but we as consumers of media in the west are so beaten down by the imagery, as i was preparing for this and reviewing some of the footage last night, it's really hard to watch. if you go to the bbc website, it's much easier to go to some list article than to look at these children suffering. assad is a war criminal. he should not be allowed to do what he is doing. who is taking the leadership to say that? we are sitting in london, where is the outrage from westminster, where is borisjohnson on this? fatigue. more to the point, who can enforce that? the russians. can i bring up iran? that is another question. that is in a way balanced

because israel and iran balance each other, they are not really the main proponent, it's russia. without the russian air force, assad is dead. it is russia we should target, iran in a way is an aside to the story. what do you think about the question of borisjohnson. much distracted about events with brexit. i think there is a significant role for our country and this discussion, we have a moral responsibility given our history and heritage in that region. i do think we should not overstep our bounds. if we are going to act in this environment, if you break it, you own it. if we intervene significantly, and if assad were to go as a result, that's two big ifs, who goes in his place? what is our responsibility

for propping up that regime? the pragmatic answer is that this terrible person running his country is better than propping up a new regime for which we back ——bear complete responsibility, that cannot go well. war criminals sometimes have to be tolerated? yes. and leaders sometimes have to stay in office. he is a war criminal, not a bad leader. what about the un? we heard the french ambassador talking about this being a key credibility moment for the un, and it should notjust the graveyard for many syrians, but it also should not just be the graveyard for the un security council. is it is now 11 times russia has blocked the resolutions on this. there is a paralysis here, the russian agenda and the rest of the world's agenda in conflict. the structure of the un is now paralysed and the credibility

very much at stake. basically every major international issue like this has failed to be resolved because of these kinds of power imbalances. in the end, we form these so—called coalitions of the willing and if something will happen here, that's where it would be. the un is doing a terrific job, a very good job with the five million refugees. it's good for other things. we must move on, but a yes, no answer. if there were listeners or viewers to this programme in eastern ghouta today, yes or no, is there any hope for them in the nearfuture to an end of the air strikes and the siege they are living under? no. there is always hope. i refuse to say there isn't. i don't see it, but i want to believe it. one of the biggest questions is brexit. ambitious managed divergence.

that is the expression the british prime minister theresa may and her senior ministers came up with at a summit this week to describe their vision of britain's future relationship with the european union. the president of the european council called it pure illusion. on monday, the labour leader jeremy corbyn will set out his alternative vision. alex, where does ambitious managed divergence stand today? 0ur prime minister with the office comes a very nice country manor house, and she went with ten of her senior ministers, her brexit war cabinet, to discuss what happens next. there was some agreement amongst those people, not least in mutual recognition of goods amongst us and the eu. that matters because the conservative party has not been entirely united on questions about future relationships with the eu. you are right, the next step is what happens domestically

in the uk between the government and the opposition. jeremy corbyn's position on this, perversely, given that he's not in government will be quite decisive for the mid—stage we are now looking at. he must decide, i'm amazed, he has pulled off this trick of not really showing his hand, is he going to come out in favour of us remaining in the customs union, or a customs union, and if so, will he take the labour party with him to vote against the government? and the answer? i think he probably won't. putting your colours to the mast like that undermines him with many labour voters who voted to leave the european union, and also makes a stark position between him and the government with the government saying we are trying to implement the largest vote we have ever had in our country and you are seeking to stymie it.

putting aside principles, the practical political question is, could he defeat the government? that, i don't know. if he stood up for the customs union, some conservative mps would vote with him. we will come back to that. i want to go back to that chequers moment, some called it a fudge, others called it ambitious, the prime minister playing a blinder. as someone not in the entrails of brexit everyday, do you feel you watched that episode and you now understood where the government stands on brexit? i am a politicaljunkie so i do understand it but for much of the world, if you compile the definitive brexit dictionary after all this is over, after march 2019, there will be these key phrases, managed divergences, the vassal state, cake and eat it philosophy. the three baskets approach. all of it goes on and on. basically, as one can understand it, clearly, the eu keeps expressing great surprise and bewilderment

at the british position. it's always been clear. it's posture. the british want everything. they have said it over and over. which part of that do they not understand ? whether it is unattainable or not... we have already heard the president of the european council say pure illusion, but is there a route by which the uk can win, all gain no pain? no, because you cannot cherry pick. the single market or the custom union, you are in, or you are out. the chequers compromise is purely for internal, because as far as the 27 are concerned, they will refuse it. it's a fudge for domestic consumption? yes, a domestic fudge. you have on one side a very divided uk government, who is coming now with this cherry picking of what they want.

0n the other side, which you forget, the 27 are all united. they all know what they to do, britain is isolated, britain has absolutely no cards. let's just checked... i just want a reality check. this is now more than a year and a half into this discussion, we are approaching a year before the divorce, whatever you want to call it, that's a polite word. an open marriage! we are still talking about general terms and concepts. we have moved from brexit meaning brexit, to these new terms that you rhyme off, yet we are not getting into specifics. it just shows that theresa may, as you say, has this impossible balancing act within her party. the country does not know where it's going. people should be concerned about

the lack of leadership on specifics. there was an agreement in phase one. there will be an agreement on phase two, which will be bad for britain. it is moving on. the trade now is the most important thing. again, britain is isolated in trade, the illusions of grandeur that they can get it on their own, it's a medium—sized country facing 27! this is a negotiation in which people are taking postures. the peculiar thing, i am not saying you were doing this, but the peculiar thing in our country, we look at what the british government does and pick it apart, then we look at what the eu says, equally posturing on their side, and say, here is the gospel handed down to us by these leaders of the eu. actually, a lot of what's being said publicly is hot air in preparation for real, hard negotiation, bad news for viewers who want to get this over and done with. it won't be concluded until 01 next year. i want to point out the eu, the united position is likely

to start a splinter and has already. why? it hasn't. because the first post—brexit budget of 2021 is starting to be discussed. we will see it in may, there are significant differences emerging and more will emerge over trying to plug that big hole, 10 billion euros. is that something the uk can take advantage of? indeed, one hopes they can, in the security cooperation field. the europeans must spend more on security. no—one knows what it will look like, perhaps not even alex. the important thing is not the security, we all agreed. the brits need europe. the canada thing, this delusion that the uk will get canada plus, plus, plus. the canada deal took seven years. alex is saying that's a posture.

you know very well it does not include service, financial service. the canadian deal is not useless. more over, the average trade deal takes two or less and you must bear in mind the importance attached to a trade deal between us and the eu, if there is to be one, given we are each other‘s largest trading partners. this is not like forming a deal with another third nation, the day we leave we will be europe's largest trading partner with who we operate a massive trading surplus. that point about splintering as fair, some countries will want some things more than others and the closer you get to the finish line, the more... this is a particularly interesting week. monday, we have jeremy corbyn speaking. where alex began, it's critical we watch what happens monday. corbyn who has been defined

as an ideologue has the potential to pivot to being a pragmatist on monday, and we talk about chess and checkers, he could play a really interesting chess game. if he could force the government's hand, there is a scenario that is not outrageous that says he could force an election sometime this year. walk us through these steps, by peeling off government rebels? by peeling off government rebels, by saying labour is now pro—customs union, or for a soft brexit. that would potentially bring it more to where the lib dems fit in. do you think corbyn will do that? i've put my crystal ball away, i have been so wrong at this desk so many times. i think we should watch and see. then you have theresa may scheduled to speak friday to give her position, tusk has already said she is delusional. this is a critical week. what kind of partner pre—emptively

slags off the thing being said by the person they are supposed to be negotiating with? you want to cherry pick again! you two have been round that argument. i want to hear what you have to say about that dilemma. i hope corbyn comes down to stay in the customs union and that this government, useless government, very useless government, as far as negotiation is concerned. they will fall because, at the end of the day, the eu is faced with a government which is not knowing what it wants, it is divided, you need a strong... that is your hope, but do you think that will happen? i think that corbyn will go for the customs union. i think the labour leader will go for a customs union. i think it's all aboutjobs, and the shadow foreign secretary saying, it's the right

thing to think. he may well, and then not only does it put the debate in a near existential one for the challenge to the government in the house in a real way, then tory rebels must think, what do i do now, do i vote with the labour party in favour of a customs union, but i could bring down the government? they must decide whether they are a remainer before they are a tory. correct, and i think many will decide they are a tory before they are a remainer. if corbyn does do that, the other domestic thing to think about is he crushes the liberal democrats, which is a long—term labour party aim and with which i don't entirely lack sympathy. he crushes them because? they have been the pro—european party but if labour is pro—european enough and has the potential of getting into government, they hoover up lots of those lib dem votes. the lib dems have been fishing for a long time in the politics of the left—wing, so if labour is both and pro—eu...

the lib dems must watch what happens on monday. they do not have an opportunity, they are not in the equation. i think that corbyn can really change the course of this debate. the question is whether he has the stomach to do it. you ask what is the lib dem possibility, i think constructive dispersal. laughter lam coming up with more terms! more vocab. it does not matter what happens to the lib dems. it matters that europe is going forward. there is the budget, but also this emmanuel macron idea and phenomenon. for me, british policy, there is no new leader, there is no macron, while europe has this macron who wants to create several state europe. if you are right and things

are so unlikely to work out in a dialogue with the eu, which may be the case, then all the more do we need to look to our relationships with the rest of the world and build trade deals with them. like it or not, we are leaving the eu. we must accept that reality. with no strings?! we must close, i'm sorry to all of you. thank you for coming in. hello, all pretty weighty stuff

there, and the weather will get weighty as well, it is weighing on my mind at the moment. today is looking like that, what is wrong with that? apart from the butcher, not much at all. but the damage is a big issue at the moment. we are tapping into this cold reservoir of airlurking tapping into this cold reservoir of air lurking across scandinavia and siberia and it is coming our way. there is more cloud across eastern scotla nd there is more cloud across eastern scotland and the north—east of england. if you are exposed along those eastern shores, you will be down at around one celsius. in the west, up to eight celsius. make the most of that, you won't see it again. 0vernight, we start importing the cloud and the first signs of that cold air coming in from the continent, across the north sea, picking some moisture. dotting wintry showers, to the extent that

when you get up on monday morning, it will feel much colder across the whole of the british isles, and also there is the prospect of some wintry showers. primarily central and eastern parts of the british isles. not much change initially in the west, apart from a much colder feel. then the showers really ramp up, and they merge. this could be a real problem, drifting down the north sea, crashing into a good part of the british isles as we get on through the rush—hour on tuesday morning and then pushing further south during the course of the day. a day which sees those temperatures bumping down. add in the strength of the wind, minus —5 is how it will feel. it gets worse than that as it moves into the middle of the week because we keep the snow showers coming, and the depths of slow line begin to mount up, and the wind is

stronger. in the south we have an area of low pressure which will eventually push warm, moist air towards all the cold air, and that could signify a change into blizzard conditions across the southern half of the british isles in the latter pa rt of the british isles in the latter part of the week. before that, all of the heavy snow showers keep coming from the north sea, and it will feel brutally cold, given that the strength of the wind will ramp up the strength of the wind will ramp up through monday, tuesday, and into thursday. quite a shopping list of weather, it will be disruptive. this is bbc news. the headlines at midday:

a shift of policy on europe by labour — shadow brexit secretary sir kier starmer, confirms the party would keep britain in a customs union. we have long championed being in a customs union with the eu and the benefits of that. obviously it is the only way realistically to get tariff—free access. it is really important for our manufacturing base. and nobody can answer the question of how to keep a commitment to no hard border in northern ireland without a customs union. this is the scene live in pyeongchang where the closing ceremony of the winter olympics is under way — team gb took their record tally of five medals at the games. syrian warplanes are reported to have attacked the besieged rebel area of eastern ghouta despite the un security council voting unanimously for a ceasefire.