donald trump ends the iran nuclear deal and reimposes tough economic sanctions, ignoring the pleas of germany, france and the uk. so what happens now? the europeans vow to defend the deal, but we're in uncharted waters now, while tensions in the middle east run high. we'll hearfrom, among others, former deputy assistant to the president, sebastian gorka and journalist nazenin ansari. also tonight: borisjohnson is on manoevres again, deriding theresa may's proposals for a customs partnership with the eu as crazy, but cabinet arithmetic suggests she can't lay a glove on him. the longest—serving mp, ken clark, has his own boxing gloves. and ronan farrow helped bring down weinstein. now he's co—authored an expose on the new york attorney general. how hard is it to pursuade women to speak out? we are living in a very different climate right now. each one of the women who spoke out against eric schneiderman did so in the face of fear

of retaliation, fear that this would mark them forever. and that's a legitimate fear. good evening. donald trump has tonight made the biggest foreign policy play of his presidency. he has pulled america out of the 2015 iran deal, signed by barak obama, thejoint comprehensive plan of action. it was a campaign pledge but in doing so trump has ignored angela merkel, theresa may and the man who was his best friend last week, emmanuel macron. tonight in a joint statement the three european leaders expressed their regret and concern and agreed their continuing support of the joint comprehensive plan of action. when trump was a presidential candidate his line was, "we have a horrible contract but we do have a contract." now he's announced he'll tear it up and re impose

the highest sanctions. the israeli prime minister, benjamin nata nyahu, reacted immediately, calling it a bold decision against a terrorist regime. but will it increase or decrease the likelihood of further conflict in the middle east? here's our diplomatic editor, mark urban. we cannot prevent an iranian nuclear bomb under the decaying and rotten structure of the current agreement. the iran deal is defective at its core. if we do nothing, we know exactly what will happen. he then signed an executive order restoring sanctions. there was no plan b announced, how else iran's nuclear ambitions might be thwarted, rather ample evidence that the white house would rather return iran to sanctions because of its role backing allies in the region. there's no doubt that iran has continued to cause a lot of problems across the middle east and there is no, it certainly

doesn't appeal that they feel like the deal binds them from continuing to fund terrorism across the middle east. the news did not come as a surprise to the deal‘s european signatories and they had readied their response. the nuclear deal with iran is the culmination of 12 years of diplomacy. it belongs to the entire international community. it has been working and it is delivering on its goal, which is guaranteeing that iran doesn't develop nuclear weapons. the european union is determined to preserve it. but can european firms carry on trading with iran if us sanctions are reimposed 7 there's going to be a lot of heavy lifting which is going to have to take place in the weeks and months ahead. in order to make that a realistic possibility and a reality. i think that the europeans could take a variety of steps to insulate firms from us punitive measures, much like the russians and the chinese do.

america has proven an unreliable signatory to many international agreements. the europeans have been hesitant to go down that route because they're worried about further damaging transatlantic ties beyond the damage which trump has already caused. america has proven an unreliable signatory to many international agreements. so the kyoto climate change protocol was never ratified. similarly, bill clinton endorsed the international criminal court but never sent it for ratification. and then president bush revoked the decision anyway in 2002. there was the 2016 trans—pacific partnership deal. president trump withdrew from that one. so president 0bama neverframed the iran deal as a treaty needing to be ratified. relying instead on a rolling suspension of us sanctions against iran by the presidency. this nuclear deal and sticking to it is not only a matter of security but also has important repercussions for the credibility of the sitting us president and future us presidents to dictate us foreign policy. because obviously if everybody

is now under the impression that any future us president can undo what a former president has done in terms of international commitments and undertakings it's going to be very hard to trust that as a counterpart that is reliable going forward. and what about a iran itself? polls suggest people there expect a response, but what will it be? restarting enrichment or something less provocative? tonight iranian president rouhani pledged to carry on with the deal. translation: from this moment on the nuclear agreement is between iran and five other countries. from now on five plus one and has lost one. and in these circumstances we have to wait to see how the five other countries will react. if europe can come up with a package in which iran can receive the benefits of the deal,

iran will consider remaining basically within the deal and following its commitments. but it's hard to know if that will hold up and probably there will be some sort of retaliation around access and enrichment unless europe does provide a strong signal to iran that it's going to stand on their side. president trump has fulfilled a campaign promise and junked president 0bama's principal foreign policy achievement. the world and now awaits the consequences. mark is with me now. let's talk a little bit more about whether the steel can survive? i think there are near—term questions, some people suggesting this evening that some kind of re—entering of discussion about how this could be saved for everyone, there is that kind of talk but i'm not sure,

could america re—enter? i would not put much reliance on it and i don't think iran would be up for that on those terms. and the longer term questions, critically, can european countries, china and russia carry on trading? i think they can make an argument that it is lawful to do so both in terms of their own national laws and the un security council resolution which buttresses this whole deal and remains in place. would america move to take away some of that trade either by doing secondary sanctions against firms, we don't know. there is no sign they want to do anything about the resolution? no. there was a briefing this evening byjohn bolton the national security adviser that suggested that the us cannot do much about it because that would require a vote within the security council and the other countries would not go along. what about the position of iran? we know what rouhani said tonight.

the foreign minister has treated tonight saying that the iran review of it will be dependent on whether they can find a way to effectively, so if the europeans, russia and china can find a way to keep deductive trading and security arrangements in place iran seems ready to do that. mark, thank you very much. i'm joined now by nazanin ansari, an iranian journalist for kayhan london. and from washington by former deputy assistant to president trump, sebastian gorka. also jarrett blanc, he worked in the us state department while barack 0bama was president. his job was trying to ensure iran fulfilled its nuclear commitments. he now works at the carnegie endowment for international peace. good evening to you all. i will start with you, nazanin ansari, like the europeans, was iran expecting this? they were expecting it. i think they had been saying that they will ask the europeans for support and this is something

they have heard also from the think tanks here in london and all the emphasis is now on europe. that will allow them to be able to keep the bargain. what donald trump paid a lot of attention to today was what he has called the spirit of the agreement being broken, why this support for president assad and actions in yemen and support for agents of terror in the middle east and saying that no matter what was happening they were not sticking to the spirit of the agreement. certainly when you look at the amount of financial help iran is sending to hezbollah, which helping logistically with weapons, training, it is estimated to be $1 billion a year. to syria it is between $6—$15 billion a year, different estimates.

all of this money that was supposed to be able to generate for the detriment of the iranian economy has been diverted. —— betterment. the millions of iranians that president rouhani said would get education and work and all these foreign companies coming in, there's this put his position injeopardy? his position has been injeopardy because although the iranian economy, the oil revenues went back to pre—sanction levels, the economy has suffered. since december, 2017 we are seeing protests and strikes on a daily basis. do you think rouhani will survive? he has to survive because if he doesn't survive it is the system at stake. i'll come back to you, thank you very much. sebastian gorka, first of all, absolutely no evidence iran was breaking the deal.

really? did you listen to netanyahu a week ago? netanyahu was saying that what had been shorn for these papers was that prior to 2003 they were working towards this but there was nothing to say that since 2003, so what i am asking is not so much that iran is actually actively pursuing a nuclear bomb, it is because donald trump does not believe the deal is a good deal. not at all. if you go back, and i encourage your viewers to go back and watch the full 20—minute briefing from prime minister netanyahu, it is clear from that massive data dump, the hundreds of thousands of documents, half a tonne of intelligence information that the anmar nuclear warhead project is still going. even if they had not been in technical breach, which they have been.

look up heavy water and jcpoa you will see that iran is in technical breach as well as being in breach of the spirit of the agreement. the agreement itself isjust bad. it doesn't talk about ballistic missiles and it doesn't stop iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. let me put this to jarrett blanc, according to sebastian gorka the iranians had broken the deal and were in the process of moving forward towards nuclear weapons? that's flatly false. it's not been the conclusion of the international atomic energy agency, it's not been the conclusion of the us intelligence committee and it was not the conclusion at the last testimony and it was not what president netanyahu said. —— prime minister. if i can respond to the last thing sebastian gorka was trying to say, the idea that the only deal which is a good deal is one that resolves every outstanding point of friction between two at the surveys is another way of saying don't try diplomacy,

let's go straight to war. their hardest and most important problem, the iranian nuclear programme was taken off the table. did it solve every other problem? no, but it put us in a position to work in those problems and president trump has destroyed that position. sebastian gorka, he may have destroyed that position up to a point you might say, jarrett blanc, but it looks like the other signatories, the other people who have signed up can go on trading with iran. is that what president trump is happy to see happen? not if you look at what our brand—new ambassador to berlin has tweeted out just a few minutes ago, giving a clear indication that german companies should desist trading with iran as soon as possible and wind down their activities. this is the reall nub of the issue. european allies are not protesting because of some altruistic love of multinational agreements. it's about money. the biggest trading partners to iran after the jcpoa

was signed our countries like germany and france. that is categorically absurd. can ijust put that to jarrett blanc, the european resolution still stands and this might end up in the courts of law because despite what the new ambassador to germany is saying there is nothing here which says europeans cannot trade with iran. so first of all, it's categorically absurd that this is about economics for the europeans. iran is an insignificant market for europe. this is about security for the europeans. they are concerned about their nuclear programme, they have solved the problem and want to stick with the solution. as to whether or not international firms can carry on trading with iran, the answer is of course yes, the legality of secondary sanctions is very much in question. as a practical matter, the whole deal is about secondary sanctions, it's about the threat the us previously imposed on non—us firms doing business with iran and the question lies

with the governments of europe and asia to decide are they going to go along, even quietly, with the united states or will they take active steps to allow firms to do business with iran and therefore protect the benefits iran received from the deal. it's it's possible, it's difficult, but it's a practical issue, not a legal one. sebastian gorka, on the point donald trump was making, reaching out to the iranians people and talking about the proud history, proud culture, is donald trump seeking regime change in iran, do you think? i know he isn't. this is not what he believes in. he does not believe in regime change, he sees that as fundamentally antithetical to the american way and thinks it is not what we are here to do. i will just ask all your viewers and you get especially, if you have a problem with the murderous regime, the largest state sponsor

of terrorism, that puts homosexuals in prison and kills people who dissent, shoots women on the street who dissent? those are the people you are defending, and you should be ashamed of yourself. are you ashamed of yourself? no, i am not siding with the government of iran but american security interests. iran is a great power, we are a great power, and we can deal with iran as long as it doesn't have a nuclear weapons programme or a path there. i believe in sticking with our solution. i don't think it will solve that. i am curious. how does the clause, which allows them to develop nuclear capacity after seven years, take that off the table? whoever you are, you are living in a fantasy land. answer that quickly, please. so like most arms control agreements this has terms, and like successful arms—control agreements it perceives its own follow—on, so if we had stuck with the gcqa and implemented it in good faith then we would go back

at the next period with the strong support of our allies and partners. now we are all alone. thank you very much. to put this back to you, what chance do you think there is iran will seek a new deal? iran has to be able to continue the government and the system of iran has the continue operating financially. right now it is bankrupt. so it is in its best interests to seek a new deal. certainly, there have been voices already in the parliament asking for everything to be put on the table. now, whether the revolutionary guards are an architects of the iranians strategy in syria, in lebanon on, in yemen, whether they would want to put all their cards on the table

is another question, but at the end of the day iran has to decide whether it is a cause 01’ a country. if it is a country it has to think of its people first. thank you all very much indeed. "all for one and one for all". perhaps boris johnson didn't get round to reading the the three musketeers at eton. the foreign secretary, far from embracing collective cabinet responsibility, has happily brandished a rapier and shredded theresa may's proposals for a customs partnership, thus undermining her yet again, the prime minister's brexit plans. clearly he believes he can act with impunity — and he's probably right — aided by the change in the delicate balance of the cabinet last week with amber rudd out and sajid javid in. after his branding of the proposals as "crazy" in a carefully timed interview with today's daily mail, mrjohnson apparently got

through cabinet today unscathed with downing street declaring that the prime minister had full confidence in boris — but did she have herfingers crossed behind her back? i'm joined by our political editor nick watt. nick, hello. firstly what can theresa may do? she has to resolve the situation in her cabinet very soon so she can influence the findings of the european council that will take place in brussels at the end ofjune. but she does want to work by consensus, she wants as many members of that brexit cabinet subcommittee on her side agreeing with her. she wants all of them although she might not get that. i spoke to one brexit cabinet minister this evening who said they are very confident they killed off the customs partnership, the one boris johnson was criticising. they think they can win on the so—called maximum facilitation idea, basically using technology to deal with the border. talking about going back to brussels to say, we have your concerns, can we address them? interestingly, i spoke to some remain members of the cabinet and they send relatively relaxed at the moment, saying it is not necessarily

a binary choice between these two options on the table. you could perhaps have elements of both. we are all hearing there will be a showdown, though? if the prime minister were to go for her then preferred option, the customs partnership, borisjohnson would, as one ally said to me, flounce out of the cabinet, but it looks like some remain supporting tories are not really up for a fight. there has been a lot of talk that parliament as a whole fever is more of a gentle brexit and conservative eurosceptics are not totally representative parliament. those remain supporters will have an opportunity in the next month to have a vote when the eu withdrawal bill comes back from the house of lords. this evening, the lords voted to keep the uk in the european economic area, which essentially means remaining in the single market. when that comes and the government tries to overturn that in the house of commons, if this labour front bench besides it agrees, which it doesn't at the moment,

all the tory remainers, the ken clarkes, all they need to do is turn up and then the government could be in trouble. also ken clarke and his supporters are planning to amend a later built to keep the uk in a customs union. well, they could take the bill as amended, which has a mild amendment on the customs union, and he could put his own version and see whether he could get mps to vote for that. thanks very much for that, nick. well, indeed, we have them here. i'm joined now by passionate remainer, former chancellor and the conservative's longest serving mp — ken clarke. we will come to the machinations of the vote in a moment, but firstly, on boris. what would it take for him to get sacked? normally he would have been sacked, it is totally irresponsible. a strong government works by having candid discussions inside cabinet, you try to reach a compromise, then you stick by the agreed policy. they have already agreed this policy once, the outlines of it. but he quite irresponsibly keeps

undermining the prime minister's efforts to get an answer. she just doesn't have a secure enough majority to sack him. personally i think she would be much better off if he flounced out, because it would complete his rather extraordinary performance as foreign secretary. even in europe long history at westminster have you ever seen this level of insubordination in cabinet go unpunished? no, every time they try to discuss the subject of running commentary is given by boris or the other brexiteers, all the time, against the general consensus view the prime minister is trying to get. you can't run a government like that, particularly one with a parliamentary majority that is clearly against boris johnson's preference. he is so clearly undermining theresa may. you called her a difficult women. should she be more difficult, and sack him? she should reach a decision. time has been wasted. we spend two years to get here,

and the europeans are waiting on the government to decide what its policy is, what it is trying to negotiate. the public are getting completely bewildered and driven off the wall by this and a lot of it seems detail, but actually if you put new barriers on our borders, if you have tariffs, customs processes, lorry parks, queues on the motorways, you raise costs, damage our economy, and this is a very important decision. but if he is standing in the way, should he just be sacked? that would no doubt reinforce and give a sense of injury to these brexiteers. i think he will have to make up his mind when the cabinet as a whole agrees on the most sensible arrangement they can get, to make sure we have an open border in ireland and we don't have new barriers to our trade, and investment.

then boris can really make up his mind whether he is a minister or not, or whether he wants to go about campaigning for the leadership on the backbenches. let's deal with these members. you have an amendment on the trade bill on the customs union but it looks like it will be knocked back to the autumn, but there is a way... there is a way next month you could strengthen that customs union amendment in there. that, presumably, is what you will do? there is a clear majority, cross—party, and house of commons, because both parties... what makes europe such a destructive issue in all these debates. a cross—party, there is a large majority on not putting barriers to our trade and investment, not barring ourselves from the most important market we have in the world which is what it will remain... leaving the customs union, to be fair, it was on the 2017 manifesto you campaigned for... ididn't campaign.

it was halfway through the election, nobody sent copy, i never read it... let's not have a postmortem on the general election campaign or i will be going on about other things. why this matters and is important, it will decide how successful the british economy is for the next generation or two. the younger generation will be poorer than they otherwise would be, probably in any event, as we leave. they will be made much poorer than they otherwise would be if we have a hopeless set of new barriers... but if you had got your way on the customs union and other things, and of course we havejust heard what nick said about the european economic area. would you act to support your view even if it meant bringing down theresa may? it would not bring her down, it would actually strengthen her. again, that was what the brexiteers were trying to say. she said it would not be a matter... she has been defeated once, or the government has been defeated once, when they tried to stop

parliament having a vote on the outcome. the next day... nobody called for her... it is laughable, more brexiteer nonsense. the prime minister would be strengthened if we sorted out these wild right—wing people and actually got the cabinet to come forward with the solution which matches the majority in parliament. and, already, the government has committed itself to no physical infrastructure in ireland, regulatory convergence is necessary, and we don't want new barriers to trade. i have to stop you there, ken clarke, thank you very much indeed. ronan farrow brought his journalistic, legal and hollywood background to his role in the downfall of harvey weinstein and the rise of the me too movement. he also co—authored yesterday's new yorker expose on new york attorney general eric schneiderman, who resigned today after four women alleged non—consensual physical

abuse — allegations schneiderman vehemently denies. alongside his investigative journalism, ronan farrow has written a new book called war on peace, the end of diplomacy and the decline of american influence. emily spoke with him earlier today. ronan farrow, your latest scoop, barely 2a hours old, exposes the new york attorney general schneiderman, who champions the me too movement, as an abuser of women. he denies the allegations, but he has nevertheless resigned from his post. i wonder how that response compares to what you imagine it would have been a year ago? we're living in a very different climate right now. each one of the women who spoke out against eric schneiderman did so in the face of fear of retaliation, fear that this would mark them forever, and that's a legitimate fear. when you google an accuser of a high—profile person, for evermore, that is one of the parts of their biography

that they have to content with. and i think the difference now is that this is something they understand people will listen to and embraced to an extent that wasn't true before. that doesn't make it easy, but it does mean they can see a universe in which they would tell these difficult stories, even about someone this powerful, and it would actually have an impact. we are now at a place where schneiderman is being investigated. what is your sense of what happens now? the conduct that these women are alleging is criminal in nature. you know, it's assault. they have been very painstaking in laying out that this is not, as eric schneiderman has claimed in his statements, role—play, that was consensual in any way. that this was in their few clear—cut assault, and that it took place in many cases, fully clothed, outside the bedroom. one of these women wasn't even in a relationship with him at all. where are we with weinstein now? do you think all these months on he would be facing charges, prosecution?

i will say i am in touch with law enforcement sources who are working very hard in multiplejurisdictions to ensure that the ball is not dropped, as it has been in the past, with respect to the weinstein case. i think that inquiries that are ongoing are correct, and i imagine we will see a motion on that in months to come. of course, you know, perhaps one of the ironies of the news of the last 2a hours is that eric schneiderman was one of the law—enforcement officials investigating harvey weinstein and the handling of that case. we are now at a place where you want to believe everyone who comes to you. oh, i wouldn't say that at all. 0k. not even slightly. i do not think it is myjob to believe every source that comes my way. and, you know, i have a lot of tough conversations with very brave sources, who come to me and tell these stories,

about exactly this distinction. that they are best served if i am as sceptical as possible and ask as many tough questions as possible. your own sister had the experience of not being believed when she came forward. would you be somebody who encouraged her to keep going on that? well, you know, going back to me on a human level, as opposed to as a reporter, it was a draining experience for our whole family when she came forward, most of all for her of course. but these stories of sexual violence are shattering to everyone around a survivor. and so, you know, ithink i and probably at various points my mother questioned, you know, why is it necessary to bring this up again? and she was adamant and i am very proud of her that she was. i really learned something from the experience of watching her insist upon raising this again and again, until people listen. now if you look at what has happened recently, for example, the academy awards body, they have removed bill cosby, roman polanski. do you feel that woody allen belongs

amongst those names? it's not for me to say, you know. i think because of those failings of the criminaljustice system, and as we have seen with cosby, it can take years and years for the truth to come out and forjustice to be served. 0bviously my sister's case is one where, you know, she is still very much angry and trying to be heard. it is a story in a different place. you might have written a book about the me too movement, but in fact you went to look at diplomacy, a whole other string to your bow, and earlier career where you worked in the state department under the 0bama administration with hillary clinton. you write about your concern for america's influence. do you think its power is diminishing permanently irrevocably? this book is not a eulogy for diplomacy. if it were, i don't know i if i would have written it. it lays out, hopefully in acute detail, and credibly,

the depth of the problem. that america is more and more a nation that shoots first and asks questions later, that we don't have our peacemakers that we need, that we don't have negotiators. that when we confront a conflict we no longer have a core of experts and strategic thinkers to keep us out of the line of fire. we now know that president trump is pulling america out of the iran deal completely. what is going to happen? this is one of the deepest fears of all of the negotiators involved in the iran deal, but also in the broader community of experts on iran and beyond. the problem with unilaterally pulling out of the iran deal is it drives a wedge between the united states and the rest of the western allies involved in that deal. it calls into question the united states and their trustworthiness on their major diplomatic commitments. worst of all, it sends a clear message to north korea. why would the north koreans ever come to the table,

or if there is this meeting between kim jong—un and donald trump, why would they ever stick to their commitments, if the united states in an environment where every other power in the world has said iran is sticking to their commitments in this deal, for all its imperfections it is working in the narrow way it is supposed to work, why, looking at that, would north korea ever stick to anything? what if we are in a totally new era? were actually calling somebody a rocket man actually get through to the first of how diplomacy is done now? all i can say is the commitments being made by north korea right now and public statements are once they have made before, and we have seen that they have lied. this is one of the most wily and slippery diplomatic opponents we have in the world. we should, of course, point out that harvey weinstein, eric schneiderman and woody allen deny all abuse accusations against them. the british seaside is a place of surreal enchantments — the distorting hall of mirrors on the pier, the madcap belief that you might actually find a parking space and an ice cream on a bank holiday. all in all, the burghers of brighton

may have been onto something when they invited the artist david shrigley to direct this year's festival. the turner—prize shortlisted shrigley is best known for his strange and darkly comic cartoons, and for his enormous bronze thumbs—up really good' which appeared on the fourth plinth in trafalgar square. as shrigley‘s festival hits its stride this week, our man on the front with a stick of rock and a guano—garnished kiss me quick hat is stephen smith... david shrigley suffering for his art. not even poor van gogh whacked himself over the head with a shovel. shrigley‘s rehearsing his alt—rock panto, which premiered at the brighton festival. i made all these musical instruments as well, most of the musical instruments. electric guitars, which are kind of strange shapes.

and some of them have one string and the fret‘s in the wrong place. they're called problem guitars, and... problem guitars? and the performance is called problem. and the problem is how to play them? yeah, yeah. # mummy stabbed me with a fork... # it makes a nice pleasing racket to you at this stage, does it? the problem is in a way it's not enough of a racket. actually it's getting a bit too melodic, so i need to mess it upa bit. shrigley and his cartoon friends are settled on the sussex riviera, which seems about right. aaargh!!! we're not quite ourselves when we're at the seaside, and the same might be said of shrigley‘s humanoids, described as "darkly comic" by the critics. shrigley is curator

of the brighton festival, no less. i got off the train, and there you were on the front page of the argus. brighton is full of lunatics and dog poo. yeah. it's not quite getting the freedom of the city, is it? no, i'm not getting the freedom of the city. although, to be fair, to me, i was saying that about my neighbourhood. you know, there is a dog shit problem, there's no doubt about that. i mean, it's probably rotten to use the word lunatics. but there is a slight... there are some colourful people in brighton. yes, very colourful people. there is a bit of craziness, but i moved there for that reason. after art college, shrigley couldn't afford a studio. painting and sculpture were out, so he drew cartoons instead. he went on to make pop videos like this one for blur, but his raw talent wasn't obvious to everyone.

yeah, i made books of drawings and i sent them to private eye, etc. and they were rejected. really? yeah, i still have a letter from ian hislop. what did he say? well, it was just a pro forma letter with boxes that he ticked, you know. thatjust says, "your work is... a — not terrific, b... not appropriate for private eye. "see other," you know. did that sting? i think i was disappointed, but it wasn't only one. but there was an enormous vote of confidence in shrigley when he won the commission for the fourth plinth in trafalgar square, with a piece called really good. i was thinking, yeah, i was thinking i would cheer up the nation, and the data isn't

in yet as to whether it worked. but people always ask me questions, "what is the piece about?" "what was your intent for the piece?" but now they ask me, "where is it?" "what have you done with it?" well, that's a good point. is it in your garden? it's in a secret location, awaiting another... being placed in the collection. hopefully. if we wanted it as the centrepiece of the newsnight studio, how much are we talking about, to acquire that, roughly? i'd give you a good price, you know. but if it's licence fee payers‘ money, you know... tricky. we'd be opening a can of worms, wouldn't we? we would, wouldn't we? perhaps we won't do thatjust yet. maybe we'll borrow it for a while. more cartoons — some of them touching on ideas of "them and us" — appear in a new book. it's called fully coherent plan: for a new and better society.

indeed. which is a ridiculous premise for a book. when one watches political discourse, particularly post—brexit referendum, one does get a bit frustrated. so in a way this is my catharsis of venting a little bit. and hopefully it's sort of an amusing oblique book. i'm not sure to what extent it provides a fully coherent plan for a new and better society. i like to have the attitude that one has at their first year of art school, where you'll just try everything, and it can just be a project, and maybe you'll never do it again. but i think that's part of the privilege of the situation that i find myself in, it's that somehow i've become allowed to do lots of different things — i don't know why. but, yeah, that, and i'm not really afraid of failure either. now before tomorrow's papers, signs of rising tension

in the middle east tonight — the syrian 0bservatory for human rights have said at least nine pro—syrian government fighters have been killed in an israeli missile strike near damascus. now the front pages. the telegraph, when i make promises i keep them, that was donald trump, his promise to get rid of the iran deal. the financial times, trump pulls out of iran a chord and restores sanctions. the guardian with fears of new crisis and above that, cate blanchett the president of the cannes festival jury. that's it for tonight. we leave you with images of the volcano's outburst in hawaii, which has forced almost 2,000 people from their homes after lava started pouring out of new fissures in the ground in residential areas. the volcano itself's been in constant eruption for 35 years. but not normally like this. goodnight. hello. 0ur weather turned cooler for

many today. not everyone, though, still very warm in east anglia and south—east england but we've got a weather front moving through that's almost moved through now, still a few showers clinging onto eastern parts of england but soon out of the wa ke parts of england but soon out of the wake and a cooler, fresh air will have completed its journey across the country. there's a fresh feed of that coming in over the next few days from the atlantic with an area of low pressure to the north—west and we are done with heat for now. temperatures overnight under largely clear skies dipping down to single figures, some in east anglia and south—east england holding up into double figures. a weather system coming in from the west and that is tomorrow on the way. that said, most places tomorrow will get off to a fine start, some sunshine around and remain eastern parts it will stay dry through the day but wet weather $0011 dry through the day but wet weather soon arriving into northern ireland in the morning and western scotland. gusty into the western isles and we

will see some outbreaks into western parts of wales and england. by apm, there are most eastern parts that will stay dry, but look at how much cooler it is in the south—east of the uk. an indication of the cooler air completing its journey south—east. in the evening, a wet evening rush—hour in scotland in the west, especially into glasgow, and the rain pulling away from northern ireland will mean sunshine by the end of the day, wetter in north—west england, wales, the west midlands and into the south—west. that weather front will take what's left of its rain, might not be a huge amount left further east, as we go through wednesday night into thursday morning. after the heat, especially south—eastern parts in recent days, if you want something on the garden, you may be disappointed. thursday that is gone, good sunny spells, some cloud building, showers around in scotland, northern ireland and england and in scotland there could be heavy with thunder. breezy, temperatures coming down a few

degrees, that's where they will stay on friday and again on friday a fine start, fairly chilly, but a fine start, fairly chilly, but a fine start with plenty of sunshine from the word go but notice we have the wet weather system coming into northern ireland, western scotland, wales and western england. some uncertainty about timing, and the progression of that north—eastwards, we will keep you updated but it looks like there will be more rain on the way and temperatures none too special later in the week but of course, the warmth will come back eventually! i'm rico hizon in singapore. the headlines: donald trump pulls the united states out of the iran nuclear deal, calling it defective to its core. the fact is that this was a horrible, one—sided deal that should have never, ever been made. but the european union says it is determined

to preserve the agreement. so what happens now? i'm kasia madera in london. also in the programme: as the north korean and chinese leaders meet again, is the korea nuclear deal still on track? and we report on how indonesia's plastic waste is getting into ourfood chain.