reputation, mum it-‘u: reputation, this is may's reputation, this is providing boris johnson's may's reputation, this is providing borisjohnson‘s reputation. i remember tweeting i am conditioned to see trouble ahead when consensus forms over any british foreign policy. you never know what form of trouble it will take but you know those cheering for theresa may say this will make her premiership will turn on her at some point if it sta rts turn on her at some point if it starts to go wrong. it is only starting to go wrong in the sense as you say is that it has become murkier. it is not quite so clear cut because of this issue of the source. because the victims are recovering. but even so, it seems to me the hysteria that greets every british foreign policy initiative in the context in inverted commas of war, this one metaphorically speaking, is deeply dangerous. that's not to say that theresa may was not right at first but it needs to be scrutinised more carefully and cautiously than a, sort of,

celebration of british greatness. which always accompanies the early stages of british foreign policy before it starts to go wrong.” stages of british foreign policy before it starts to go wrong. i was struck by an intervention from one centre—right politician in germany who, following the stories of russia's process, said it's a bit worried now about the evidence britain has for blaming russia. yeah. it was interesting that was the current prime minister of a very important region. he is from angela merkel's party. he is from the cdu. you would expect the social democrats, politicians on the left, coming out and expressing criticism but not so much the cdu itself. there is a wider context. obviously, what do we know really? we would assume that our government is no more because otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to go along

with the brits. from a german perspective, this is very difficult because joe with russia —— has its owfi because joe with russia —— has its own information war. this seems to jump own information war. this seems to jump on the british wagon and to share what ever is a e that, in fact, l‘fifil e that, in fact, a éfil e that, in fact, a lg; of this is view that, in fact, a lot of this is inevitably, kind of, murky, because it suits russia for it to be murky? it sues russia to challenge every claim. ina it sues russia to challenge every claim. in a sense, the russian story has not been consistent. now it seems to be settling on, we are being wrongly accused, but there have been various explanations. there was rather mocking about the poisoning originally. it seems as if the russians haven't quite got their message focused until comparatively late on. in the middle east, we are a great believer of conspiracy theories, to be honest. it reminds

me of the iraq war, the weapon of mass destruction. about the intelligence. exactly. it reminds me of david kelly, the scientist who committed suicide, you know what happened. * committed suicide, you know what $771" believe stat—j z to believe stat—j z g— 5.21.4 of dan-erous ~ ”77771? w... this kind of dangerous thing. 150 russian diplomats were kicked out, 150 other diplomats from 22 countries were also kicked out. what is happening? why is that? what is the american role here? why did the , _ any eliflggvi. s... . . 7 to

what is the aim of this? why is britain taking the leading role in this kind of problematic subject, which could cause a lot of problems between the two superpowers of the we st between the two superpowers of the west and the east again? barry was talking about the americans jumping in and barry was talking about the americansjumping in and effectively they went much further with their own sanctions this weekend very targeted sanctions against president putin's circle. some might wonder why it has taken so long for sanctions to focus on some of the very wealthiest people who are so close to president putin. there are questions being raised about why britain also doesn't take action along the same lines. are those questions being raised in washington? you now have effectively two us foreign policies. trump's

rhetoric, treating putin with kid gloves. ring him up, congratulating him. against the advice of his advisers, on his early election and invited him to the white house. and then the administration which is hitting back harder than obama ever hitting back harder than obama ever hit back on russia. these latest sanctions will bite, hitting associates very close to putin. the sounds are various oligarchs —— the mail various oligarchs. some people refer to this as a cold war 2.0. i actually think right now we are at the worst that malaysians have been between moscow and the west since probably the early 19805 —— the worst that relations have been. since the early invasion of afghanistan in 79. i think it will get worse, it has not bottomed out. the russian contacts i talked to say

they fear that putin has now given up they fear that putin has now given up on rapprochement with the west. with his re—election, he will engage in more foreign adventurism. and now with this skripal case, the foreign office has handled this very badly. clumsy language, a tweaked that it had to pull out, creating hostages of fortune for russia to attack. it still remains the case it is highly likely this was russia, russian security services, either with the explicit backing of routing oi’ with the explicit backing of routing or freelancing. i am with the explicit backing of routing orfreelancing. iam not with the explicit backing of routing or freelancing. i am not sure what is worse, actually. —— backing of putin. putin will be backed into a corner and will play this game of disinformation, trying to exploit cracks in the western alliance. he has been genuinely shocked and surprised at the unified response from europe and the us, particularly given brexit, trump's rhetoric and

that he will have to lash out again. steve, that might explain why the propaganda war by the russians have become much more active this week. the russian ambassador in london doing a very big news conference. we have seen the phone call, which was played out on russian television, happened to be recorded and therefore available, this conversation between yulia skripal and her cousin back in moscow. picking up on stefanie's point, don't the british have to explain why they haven't had targeted sanctions until now? people like the big oligarch who is very close to vladimir putin. they won't put it like this but we know the answer, russian money has flooded into this country, the economy is about a shrink with brexit and they are worried about sanctions which could lead to a lot of russian money leaving the united kingdom. again, totally, like the fact that

she doesn't hold press conferences every ten seconds and turns it into political theatre, as tony blair and david cameron would have done. but the problem she has got herself into with this so called tit—for—tat business is, i am sure you are right, putin will now escalate the idea that rapprochement is out of the window from his perspective. and from the west's perspective, too. at some point, they will have to contemplate sanctions. and on it will go. what is the endgame when you begin something like this? all the media cheers, strong british government, strongest, strong that, but where does it end and how? is interesting that so far those financial sanctions have been imposed. when george osborne was chancellor, he was under pressure to do it, i can't remember what the background was. but he didn't because of the money. and because he

was famously a guest on a russian yacht. of course. there was a row between him and peter mandelson. at the time there was a sense of british politicians had very good relations with russia. famously, germany, putin was very good at co—opting politicians, gerhard tremmel, the former chancellor. very enthusiastic pro—russian in his outlook when he left office. there are still a lot of close ties with former german politicians. the former german politicians. the former lord chancellor now being paid bya former lord chancellor now being paid by a big russian company. talking about sanctions, there are still sanctions in place because of the ukrainian context. there is a growing discontentment to keep the sanctions going in the european union. even in the german government there was a lot of controversy how long they should they are damaging the german economy. they are suggesting that britain had made the case more aggressively than the

intelligence would back up. they had oversold it. that is a big problem, how can you keep sanctions in place and have more and stronger sanctions on the basis for that is very... not very stable? they are playing this game, exploiting those differences, playing it masterfully. despite the unified european response, president macron of france is going to the saint petersburg forum next month which is a russian's answer to davos. which some people said western leaders should boycott. he will be sharing a stage with putin, watch this space. indeed. and watch this programme. on april 9th 2003, baghdad fell to the forces of the us—led coalition. a giant iron statue of saddam hussein was pulled down, a symbol of the end of his despotic regime. the british never signed up for regime change, joining the the invasion to contain the potential threat from his weapons of mass destruction. a5 barry mentioned. unfortunately, the intelligence on which the case was made was flawed, and no such weapons were found. the invasion was

quick and effective. what followed was anything but. 15 years on, what is your assessment of the iraq that has emerged from that? when you look at that endgame, steve mentioned what happened after 15 years of the iraq invasion, how is the middle east? this invasion is supposed to have gotten rid of a brutal dictator and bring peace and stability to the middle east. do we have peace and stability in the middle east after 15 years of this invasion? the answer is a big no. look at the situation now, look at iraq. iraq is dismembered, divided. sectarian... you iraq. iraq is dismembered, divided. sectarian. .. you know iraq. iraq is dismembered, divided. sectarian... you know fight between the people, there. it is not a united country as it used to be. there was sectarianism under saddam hussein? no. were the heat we like him or not he was a secular leader.

—— whether we like him. definitely he had shortcomings and was brutal, fio he had shortcomings and was brutal, no question but iraq was, you know, a stone of stability in the middle east, whether we like it or not. secondly, what we witnessed, we witnessed islamic state and isis emerging there. now the crisis in syria. now we are having the russian 's coming to the region —— the russians coming. iran reaps the benefit of that war, iraq in particular, iran has the upper hand. we had a very serious summit taking place in ankara just a few days ago. russia, turkey and iran are working together and i believe there is a nucleus of a new walsall alliance taking place in that part. the middle east is completely dangerous. there is no stability at all. that is the problem. the people who were

behind and supported this war in iraq, are they saying, "ok, let us look at this situation, are we going to repeat this experience in the middle east? what will happen in syria? " the middle east? what will happen in syria ? " the west middle east? what will happen in syria?" the west is losing the battle in syria and iraq for the benefit of russia and iran. the president was suggesting he wanted to get troops out as quickly as possible, that is slightly muted now but that was his initial instinct. you had this confused and conflicting us policy, what trump says doesn't necessarily match his advisers and what his administration is pushing. trump says he wants to get out of the iran nuclear deal as a way of attaining iran's ambitions in the region. and —— as a way of curtailing iran. and a result of m ista kes curtailing iran. and a result of mistakes us made in the war. he was to withdraw troops fighting isis in syria which would effectively conceded territory to iran and

russia —— he wants to withdraw. this meeting this week in ankara between putin and the leaders of turkey and iran is very significant. the us was not there in a crucial discussion about the future of syria. it remains to be seen, given a new secretary of state in the us, mike pompeo and john bolton as national security adviser, two hawks, how the us will proceed. whether it from those trump's rhetoric and his tweets or wedding they will have the upper hand. steve, very strong criticism from barry about the consequences of what tony blair used to call liberal interventionism. in a sense, we intervened, we solve the immediate problem but created new problems and perhaps a vacuum in which problems flourished. does that mean that european politicians say to the middle east, forget it, we're not getting involved? it depends what you mean by getting involved, they have no choice but to get

involved. there is no question that military action, which was anyway limited, remembergermany and military action, which was anyway limited, remember germany and france opposed military action in iraq within the european union context, though not all european union members opposed it. but it is one of the reasons that i have become conditioned to be sceptical when a consensus conditioned to be sceptical when a consensus forms. you were conditioned to be sceptical when a consensus forms. you were there, i think, when the parliamentary debate happened. backing tony blair. full support. from leader of the opposition. almost all conservatives, not all. ken clarke and others opposed. and this very weekend, when saddam fell, there was a forgotten phrase in british politics. number ten hoped for what they called a baghdad bounce, that there would be a huge rise in the opinion polls as a result of this. at first, there was. an alternative

political narrative has warned that tony blair did what he thought was right although it was deeply unpopular. there was hope, partly realised, of a big rise unpopular. there was hope, partly realised, ofa big rise in popularity when he fell. what hadn't been thought through, which is why, you know, everyone needs to focus on consequences, was you know, everyone needs to focus on consequences, was what the consequences, was what the consequences would be. he even admits that himself, tony blair, that he didn't realise the divisive nature of iraq and the degree to which, as barry was saying, it would generate all the turmoil that has followed. that has had consequences when we talk about syria because the british politicians wouldn't role in a military moulded intervention, scarred by the experience in iraq. there is always a danger reading from one experience to another.m has an effect on the western european countries in this context. it is important to say that of course europe will be involved somehow but as we have seen with this summit in ankara, the west,

especially the european union is now a spectator. they are just watching what is going on without any means and any power... no real leverage. of course, in terms of refugees and reconstructing europe, europe will have to do the job. in self interest, that is why europeans should care. yes. you could see why they don't feel directly affected by it. it is not only dangerous in the middle east, in the region, of course it is physically but politically in europe this is very dangerous. we are neighbours. the middle east and europe are neighbours. what happens in the middle east will definitely reflect negatively or positively in europe. this war cost us almost $7 billion. the war in syria cost the united states at least $70 billion. it is very costly. imagine this amount of money if it was spent to make the

middle east prosperous, to make the middle east more stable. i think we would have completely different outcomes. this is what we are talking about, not the death of1 million people killed, i am talking about, not the death of1 million people killed, lam not talking about whole cities destroyed completely because of this wall. we have to look at it. i believe the british parliament was absolutely correct to say no, from day one, we shouldn't intervene in syria. also this anti—warcampaign, demonstrating in the city of london, we demonstrating in the city of london, we shouldn't go to war in iraq, i believe they were absolutely right in this position. let's move on. in the gershwin musical "strike up the band!", the president imposes a 50% tariff on imported cheese and ends up provoking a war with the swiss. there's something a little theatrical about donald trump's imposition of import duties on chinese goods and beijing's rhetoric in response — that it'll "pay any price" to ensure its economy doesn't suffer. is we have had a lot of rhetoric

from the president and the chinese over the last few weeks. in particular this week. —— we have had a lot. does it amount to the basis ofa a lot. does it amount to the basis of a trade war or do you have a sense that both sides really want to do what donald juan always wants to do, the deal? this is always a difficult with trade wars. -- what donald trump. it is difficult to map out and how they will play out. it is clear the us, given the large trade deficit it has with china, has more to lose. that's if the us imposes 50 billion or now 100 billion, which is what is being considered, tariffs on china and china responds in kind, the us will be hurt more. so far what you have seen from china is a very politically astute response. they are targeting industries and states that supported trump. soya bean farmers in the united states are suffering from low prices as it is, they have targeted soya beans. how

that will play out in the november mid—term elections, that is not good fortrump, mid—term elections, that is not good for trump, that is not good for the republican party. this will divide the republican base. looking at this, trump is obviously trying to use his rhetoric to extra ct trying to use his rhetoric to extract concessions from the chinese. it is hard for even the chinese or trump to either back down in any face—saving way. china can play this game, they can play the long game and survive. but the us will suffer more. steve, i suppose tariffs can work. one thinks of the famous example of the american politicians, ronald reagan in the early 805, when he actually got the japanese too, very quickly, reduced the number of cars they were importing to the united states because of the threat of tariffs. but china is notjapan, the relationship is different and china

isa relationship is different and china is a much bigger player and can presumably hold out much longer. also, the threat is one thing. when you impose them, that is when the trouble begins because then you get retaliation. i can understand why it starts. it is part of this whole global economy. individual leaders trying to do something about it. chamakh is a purist politician, he claims to be wholly anti—government —— trump is a purist. but he is the most active president they have had for decades, including imposing forms of protectionism. it is to some extent the same with the british government, proclaiming their commitment to free trade while leaving the european union where, in some form, tariffs might well be imposed. it looks as if the current crop of leaders are responding to the challenges of this global economy where you can get, say, clothes coming in for10p where you can get, say, clothes coming in for 10p from a country country paying peanuts to workers is

the imposition of tariffs. but it leads inevitably to retaliation —— from a country paying peanuts. everybody loses from protectionism, thatis everybody loses from protectionism, that is a lesson. it was one of the ideas behind the european free market. but even within the european union, individual companies fought and resisted, the french over energy companies, they did not want to open them up to competition, there are historical reasons why countries feel very strongly that they can't quite allow this favoured industry of their own to be exposed to the full risks that might come from free trade. of course. at the end of the day, things come down to domestic interest. while we always talk about the european single market working so well, if you look at it, when i was based in brussels i once had a story about cross—border services. it is every country and every city trying to protect its own businesses. if you blame the brits to leave and actually being very

single—minded, every country... to leave and actually being very single-minded, every country... that is what everyone else does in different ways. how do they avoid the risk that this spirals into a trade war? that it doesn'tjust stop the tariffs and the threats and there is a deal? the us trade representative said if they target our farmers, representative said if they target ourfarmers, we will representative said if they target our farmers, we will be representative said if they target ourfarmers, we will be prepared representative said if they target our farmers, we will be prepared to fight back and similarly the chinese said they will pay the price. if you create the rhetoric, you have to deliver on the action, don't you? the only saving grace is that he has just appointed a new economic adviser, larry kudlow, who has been against these tariffs. the last one resigned because he was against them. exactly! he has positioned... his words on this have been more conciliatory. even trump's words, frankly, during the campaign, he said, "this is going to be easy". his more recent statements realises there will be some short—term pain if they want to change the rules of the game. there is a degree of

consensus the game. there is a degree of consensus that china has abused wto rules. world trade organisation is supposed to ensure that everybody operates in the same way. right. there is a degree of support and you have even seen some democratic in common “— have even seen some democratic in common —— and have even seen some democratic in common —— and congressmen have even seen some democratic in common —— and congressmen who have supported these actions. —— democratic senators and congressmen. it divides the democratic party. the republican party has been the party of free trade, you would actually expect some sort of response to this, given particularly the potential economic damage it could do. we have already seen a massive drop in the stock market as a result of these moves. but you have a weakened republican party. it is now trump's party, he has the upper hand. thank you. we will have to leave it there. an interesting thought to end on, trump's party, whatever happens. that's it for dateline london for this week — we're back next week at the same time. thank you very much to my guests.

you can, of course, comment on the programme, tweet @bbc5haunley. until the same time next week, goodbye. it will certainly feel like spring throughout this weekend, some pretty mild conditions. and at times, it will look like spring as well, with a little bit of sunshine. certainly some sunshine to greet this weather watcher in redcar, earlier on. but it wasn't like that everywhere. the skies across wales were significantly cloudier. that cloud has been producing some outbreaks of rain. this is what is on the menu for the rest of the weekend. yes, it will be mild with some sunshine, but generally quite a lot

of cloud and some rain at times. this is the view from space, the satellite picture from a little bit earlier on. you can see this wriggling ribbon of cloud, which is actually plaguing us throughout today and into tomorrow. that ribbon of cloud bringing outbreaks of rain northwards, so some wet weather across wales, the midlands and northern england through the afternoon. that will drift into northern ireland and southern scotland. to the north of that area of rain it is not looking too bad across the northern half of scotland. generally, large amounts of cloud, but that breaking up at times to bring some spells of sunshine, which could well lift the temperatures to 13 or iii degrees in aberdeen. turning soggy in southern scotland and certainly some heavy rain from northern ireland and northern england. but then to the south of that, yes, quite a lot of cloud around, but where we get some breaks in that cloud and we will see some sunny spells, temperatures could get up to 16 or 17 degrees. particularly across parts of east anglia. as we go through this evening and tonight, the rain in northern england, northern ireland, southern scotland will gradually drift its way northwards, tending to peter out, as it goes. behind it, largely dry conditions, with patchy cloud and clear spells. some mist and fog patches, too.

and temperatures no lower than 5—10. but a few showers clipping into the south east. that will be because of this weather front. remember that ribbon of cloud i showed you at the start? that will still be sitting in place, down towards the south east during tomorrow. bringing some outbreaks of patchy showery rain at times across south—east england and east anglia. elsewhere, though, a lot of dry weather. any early mist and fog showed clear. any early mist and fog should clear. there will still be quite a lot of cloud, but for northern ireland and scotland particularly, some sunny spells. equally, one or too hefty showers kicking off here as tomorrow afternoon goes on. temperatures, once again, into double digits. we stick with that generally mild theme as we go into the start of the new working week. perhaps a little bit cooler, close to the east coast. there will be some sunny spells at times, but also some outbreaks of rain. this is bbc news. i'm shaun ley. the headlines at midday...

300 extra police will be on patrol in areas of london — after six people were killed in the last seven days. there are a number of things the police have to do to keep us safe. some of it is covert work the police will do. other is relying on the public to give information to the police. they need us to be the eyes and ears. but also stop and search is a valuable tool. russia warns president trump there will be a "tough response" to new us sanctions on businessmen and officials close to president putin. iii people have been killed in a crash between a bus carrying a junior ice hockey team and a lorry in western canada. an absolutely massive collision and obviously catastrophic outcome. a 25% increase in holidaymakers losing their money to fraudsters — for airline tickets