tonight we hearfrom israel's controversial prime minister, benjamin netanyahu. he may only be the the prime minister of a small country, but on him rest important decisions about war with iran, and peace in the middle east, not to mention the lives of palestinian protestors in gaza. hamas is trying to storm into israel, not peaceful protests. i don't care if they protest on their side. who cares? that's not the point, but they say, we are going to storm into israel and kill as many israelis as we can that are right next to the borderfence. confrontation with iran is on the cards — but is conciliation with the palestinians further away than ever? mr davis, did you force the prime minister's hand this morning? also tonight: it's in, out, shake it all about for the brexit secretary as he tries to lean on downing street. the brexiteers aren't happy. what, if anything, does it

mean for the country? and as the human rights case to legalise abortion in northern ireland fails on a technicality, we go inside the reform campaign. you see thousands of people on the streets in northern ireland saying, we want abortion rights now. they are not going to be able to ignore it. hello. benjamin netanyahu has been israel's prime minister for a total of 12 years and never has his influence over world affairs been more significant. he's been on a european tour this week. germany, france, the uk — the e3, you can call them, and these are the countries with whom he has a lot of disagreements, notably iran — whether the deal by which it restrains its nuclear programme in return for lifting of sanctions

is a good one. also, israel's aspiration to make jerusalem its capital and the shooting of palestinian demonstrators by israeli troops. but while mr netanyahu would like the europeans on his side, he also knows that things have moved his way in the last year, because he has a friend in donald trump. the middle east is in turmoil at the moment, mostly down to a jockeying of position between iran and saudi arabia. and yet mr netanyahu — particularly through his connection to president trump — is proving to be a pivotalfigure. mr netanyahu is a controversial and sometimes colourful politician who has long seen iran is the biggest threat to his country. the militant islamic state of iran. massive pressure on iran, including crippling sanctions. the world is a much more dangerous place today than it was yesterday. he has led a feverish campaign against iran, one of its nuclear intentions and its past lies about them,

not to mention its ventures into the affairs of other countries. big european nations have listened to netanyahu and may agree on the objective, but they have a difference when it comes to the means. they support the deal with iran, despite its limitations. however, with president trump pulling out of the deal, europe may find itself sucked out as well. european companies like the maker of peugeot and total have suspended work in iran, fearing that they will lose access to the us if they don't. in this and other respects, mr netanyahu has had a good year. remember this moment! he is getting his way, the us recognising jerusalem as is well‘s capital, and the tacit support of some traditionally hostile arab states in his campaign against iran. but against that background,

down to the seething discontent of palestinians, suppressed in the most violent of ways. they have not been getting their way and see a diminishing prospect of statehood. is netanyahu now triumphalist and trumpist? well, before he left the uk today, i sat down for an interview with mr netanyahu. obviously, we couldn't cover everything that we'd want to talk to him about, but i started on iran. more than once, he has said israel will not allow iran to get nuclear weapons. i asked how he proposed to stop them. prime minister, you've said israel will not allow iran to get nuclear weapons. how do you propose to stop them? in any way that's necessary. most of the world thinks the deal was the best way of stopping them. you're not a supporter of the deal. all roads lead to military action now, don't they? not at all. they lead to pressure.

pressure can be of various kinds, and i've seen in the past that when iran faced strong pressure, yes, a credible military response too, but also paralysing sanctions, they came to the table. you're not going to get the world behind sanctions. it's already happened, evan. i didn't come here, contrary to news reports on another network, that i'm going to try to persuade the e3, the europeans, to leave the deal. that wasn't my discussion. i said the deal is dead. it's done, because of the force of the economic sanctions. the american sanctions will have a huge effect, but you're not going to get the real, tough sanctions by the whole world, the chinese, the russians. they supported the deal. you're an economist. the force of markets, the 21 trillion dollar economy, that says to chinese companies, european companies, companies anywhere in the world, i don't specify a country, you have to choose. choose between the iranian economy, which is 3% or 4% of the american economy...

countries will obviously choose the americans, but my point is that there isn't going to be another deal. and in the end, you will have to use military force to comply... well, iran will have to choose. i think there's a larger issue here. all the diplomats and politicians and leaders talk in terms of sanctions and in terms of this little item or that big item. i want to look at the very big picture. here is a tyrannical, aggressive regime that is trying to conquer the middle east, has a demented view of somehow converting all muslims in the world to shiism under the strength of iranian tyranny, and that has to be stopped. let's not argue about the objective. we know what you think the objective is and a lot of people would agree with you.

the question is how you stop it. the truth is that military action to take out their nuclear installations doesn't solve it, because you can take out installations with military action but you can't take out the know—how. and too many people in iran know how to do it to prevent it. well, i think the prevention of nuclear weapons is more complicated than that. you need people, you need installations. you need accumulated experience and you need very precise engineering and that is very hard to do. it's not going on the internet. and we have stopped, by our combined efforts, political, economic and other efforts, we have stopped iran from achieving nuclear weapons. if we hadn't, i can guarantee they would have had a nuclear arsenal long ago, so we have been quite successful. and in any case, we should just not accommodate this aggressive, tyrannical regime that is, instead ofjoining the community of nations, is devouring the nations after the iran deal. the deal was supposed to moderate iran's ambitions, but it fuelled their aggression by giving them billions of dollars.

let's move on and talk about events in and around israel and in the middle east. may 14th was an interesting day for your country. it was the day the american embassy injerusalem opened, and a lot of us were watching literally television news programme split screens of the celebrations you were having and attending over that, and at the same time, shooting of protesters on the gaza border. how many died that day? 62, 50 of which were hamas fighters, according to their own admissions. so a dozen civilians died. they weren't protesters. a dozen civilians. you called it a glorious day. do you still think that was a glorious day? i think it's a historic day.

was it a glorious day? the moving of the embassy to jerusalem? of course it was. you don't seem to show much concern for the dozen or so civilian deaths. you don't seem to allow me to answer your questions. let me answer your questions and then you can decide if what i'm saying makes sense. yes, i think that recognising the fact thatjerusalem has been israel's capital since 3,000 years ago, the time of king david, is a great day. moving the american embassy there is a great thing and i think eventually, everybody will move their embassies there. we will see. it will take time. that is one good thing. the bad thing, which obviously none of us are happy about, is that hamas is trying to storm into israel, not peaceful protests. i don't care if they protest on their side. who cares? that is not the point. but they say, we are going to storm into israel and kill as many israelis as we can that are right next to the border fence. they're about 200 metres away in kibbutzim and we want to stop them.

we tried non—lethal means. we tried water cannon. you have made this point many times. i am making it again. i still wonder whether you would use the phrase, it's a glorious day. 0n the movement of the embassy? for sure. well, both things were related, the moving of the embassy caused the protests. it was glorious injerusalem and it was regrettable in gaza. regrettable? it was tragic. tragic sounds almost like a force of nature. it wasn't a force of nature, it was a deliberate policy of hamas to push people into the line of fire, to try to kill israelis and present this as though it was martin luther king day. it wasn't martin luther king or mother teresa. these were not peaceful protests. they were violent riots aimed at killing israelis. it undermines the need for a permanent solution to the issue around palestine. there is a very simple solution. tell me what is on offer to the palestinians if they do everything that you say in terms of recognition of the right

of israel to exist as a jewish state. first, you hit the nail on the head. if they do it, they will have the ability to govern themselves, all the rights to govern themselves and none of the powers to threaten us. they get a state of their own? you can call it what you want. but it isn't a state of their own, is it? well, except for one thing. the main thing is that the security and responsibility in an area that is the size of greater london behind us, that is all israel is. in that area, we would have the overriding security and responsibility. you will say it is a state minus or autonomy plus, i don't care what you call it. with the capital as jerusalem? their capital? their capital will be where they choose it. butjerusalem was and will remain our capital. it has been for many millennia. so eastjerusalem can be their capital if you say they can

choose their capital? no, i said jerusalem will remain israel's capital. the important thing is, who is the obstacle to peace? and in terms of how the world sees the division of terrain, your position is that your security is paramount. your security cannot be achieved without occupying their land. and by the way, they can't even have all their land because you are taking some of it. first of all, who says it's their land ? we have only been there 3,000 years. that is the international view. i am the son of a historian, i don't buy current fads. you don't buy international law? current fads. but israel benefits from a world order, does it not? you just asked me five questions, evan. you're very good at firing them but not good at listening to my response.

here is my response. the fact is that history has ordained that bothjews and palestinians are living in the same tiny land, which is the width of greater london, as i said. we have tried to leave territories and immediately, the radical islamists came into them and fired thousands of rockets into our territory. so when i talk about security, i'm not talking about a theoretical question. i don't want that to happen again. we left gaza to the palestinians and they fired 5,000 rockets. so security is paramount, but i think there is also justice. justice maintains that the one and only jewish state would have the ability to live and be recognised. the reason we don't solve this problem is not because there is no palestinian state, it's because the palestinians refuse to recognise thejewish state. if they recognise it, then i think we could organise an independent life for them. the american generaljohn allan organised a security plan for israel

that was not dependent on what the palestinians say, it was dependent on american troops in the palestinian territory, so they could have their country and you could have security, and you rejected that, not the palestinians. well, they didn't even talk about it. isaid, look, you're talking aboutjohn allen, who is a general. so they came up with a plan. and president 0bama, the boss of the secretary of state, this general, invited me to the oval office and he said, prime minister, what do you think? i said, look, barack 0bama, there are many things i don't like. but for the sake of peace, i am willing to sit down and talk about it. then he called the palestinian leader, mahmoud abbas, and he said to him, look, netanyahu says he doesn't like some of the things but he's willing to sit down and negotiate, what about you ? and abu mazen said, let me think about it. and he never came back.

john allen says politics got in the way. i didn't get in the way. there is a very simple test. do you want to sit down and negotiate peace? abu mazen now says he will not consider any peace plan that the americans bring because he accuses the current administration of being pro—israeli. did i say to 0bama, i will not discuss your peace plan because you are pro—palestinian? of course not. if you want peace, sit down, for god's sake and negotiate peace. and for god's sake, recognise the jewish state. we are out of our allotted time. let me ask you one last question. i will give you more time. let me ask you a question about empathy. it is whether you see anyjustice in the palestinian case, the 700,000 palestinians who, for whatever reason,

felt a need to leave when the state of israel was created. i think there are two refugee problems that were created and it was tragic on both sides. one, the palestinians who left what is now israel, and an equal and possibly greater number ofjews were kicked out of arab lands after that same war. we absorbed them on a tiny piece of territory. so you understand why there is grievance? you can see the other point of view? you often come across as not understanding or listening to the other side. how i am described is always interesting. it is this heavy—handed person without feelings. of course i have feelings and i understand the other side. i can't accept one thing. i can make peace with a former enemy who wants peace, but somebody who says to me, like al-qaeda, i want to destroy you, well, you can't make peace with them until they reconcile themselves to your existence.

but i will tell you what i am hopeful about, and this will surprise you, and possibly your audience, i'm hopeful because there is a massive change that is taking place today in the relations between arabs and israelis. it's happening in the arab countries. most of the arab governments now are coming close to israel because the iranian threat, they understand as we do, is something that would threaten their survival. second, once that happened, they began to see the benefits of civilian technology. they want a better life for their people and they know that israel is this fountainhead of innovation that can change and better their lives. so we are having this subterranean normalisation. and i think that as we normalise relations, we will have, not necessarily full—fledged peace treaties that we have with egypt and jordan, that will take time. but it will eventually also impact on the i% of the arab world who are palestinians.

i say normalise relations with 99%, and you will eventually get peace with the i%, although i think we should do it in tandem. so in a way, i am quite hopeful. i would have never believed in my lifetime that we would have the kind of friendly relations and co—operation between israel and the arab states, and here is the most promising thing. that is beginning to affect public opinion in some of the arab countries. they are beginning to think of israel differently. and this is what israelis long for. a lot of people think you are happy with the status quo and willjust carry on as it is because it's ok for you because you have got your way. i am changing, actually. i am changing it because i am deliberately pursuing this policy of cooperation with the arab world not only because it's good on its own merits, but also because i believe it's

a path to peace. i think there is a core of poisoned minds and hearts in the palestinians that is very hard to dislodge after 70 years. you see it with some of our neighbours. i opened a field hospital for syrian wounded civilians, women, children. horrible, lost limbs, and we take care of them on our side of the border. i visited them and they say, we are in shock. we have been told all these years that you're the devils. and the first time we were humanely treated is by these doctors, who are by the way both jewish israelis, arab israelis, they saw the prime minister of israel and they were absolutely in shock. so i think the fact we have this new—found relationship with the arab world and they see

what we are really like, that really want a solution, we just want a solution that doesn't kill us, that we can live with and they can live with. i think that is real hope. it hasn't happened. 70 years of israel's existence which we celebrate today, never had this. prime minister, thank you very much. well, let's spend a moment with our diplomatic editor, mark urban. he sounded very optimistic, quite chipper at the end there with his prospects for peace. is he right to be? well, i think there have been some developments recently that might cause him to take that view. there is more strategic cooperation, intelligence exchanges, that sort of thing with saudi arabia and the united arab emirates. this is a thing that is happening. conversely, one would have to say, for the mass of people across the arab world, i don't think there is a big shift of attitude and even with the countries weather has been a formal peace agreement there has never been a warm human response. and you are aligning yourself

with the saudi ruling family who have their own geopolitical risks and by extension with the us with this big concentration fault line across the middle east. deconstructed the position for the two state solution? mr netanyahu has been at the top of the scene for many years and there have been moments when he says he believes in the two state solution but i have to say, listening to this tonight, it is a pretty unpalatable deal he is offering, particularly from a palestinian point of view. control of security, i think he will take control of airspace. continued occupation. that is not a solution. and it is not something that any palestinian leadership can sign up to. thank you. tomorrow, it's a year since last year's general election. and the conservative party has been readying itself for the anniversary

by threatening its own implosion. david davis was reportedly set to resign, he didn't. but he and other brexiteers do fear the whole project is slipping away. the government set out its version of a last resort solution to the irish border problem, only if all else fails. and it envisages the uk remaining tied to elements of the customs union and to the eu's vat system. 0k, it may not happen, or at least not for long. but it could easily end up as the semi—permanent outcome. so a tumultuous time for brexit and the tories. i'm joined by peter bone, conservative mp and brexit enthusiast. also, two commentators with a close ear to what is going on in the conservative party. fraser nelson, editor of the spectator, and lucy fisher, chief political correspondent at the times. but let me start with nick watt, our political editor. nick, just take us through today's developments. david davis, in out, isn't he going to resign?

i'm told he was telling friends it was a score draw between him and the prime minister and if it is a score draw with the prime minister that means he won. he says he secured two things. firstly, he got an end date in that document for the so—called northern ireland backstop but it is an aspirational end date, it is not a definite end date. the other thing he says he has is an end to the backsliding on the publication of a white paper on brexit. he says that will come out before the end ofjuly and it will have the government's preferred option of how to deal with the relationship, not the backstop. why are the brexit ministers worried? they feel their vision of brexit is slipping away and the reason for that if they think theresa may wants two things in march, out of the eu but also a transition. if you want a transition, you have to have a withdrawal treaty. if you want to withdraw treaty, you have to have the backstop. and the danger of the backstop

for brexiteers is that hands the eu and absolutely decisive role in the end state. just briefly because there was other news tonight that borisjohnson, a leaked tape of him talking to a group last night. a pretty extraordinary intervention, linked to lucy at the times, buzzfeed and guido fawkes. it says donald trump would do a much betterjob in negotiating brexit but importantly saying theresa may will start to go hardball. this is a flavour of what he said. it is a bit muffled, but we are grateful to you,

lucy, because you gave us that tape. do you think borisjohnson‘s comments reflect... he made it absolutely clear and his punchy broadside at the treasury, accusing the department at being at the heart of remain was pretty hard—hitting. it is interesting, the long transcript that he spoke at the dinner last night, he talked how he believed people in the treasury were so concerned about what he felt were trumped up fears about the short—term economic pain that will be entailed by leaving the eu, that he accepted, that they're willing to sacrifice the long—term benefits of brexit. the treasury don't think there will be long—term benefits anyway. fraser, other resignations, boris johnson even?

there was talk that boris and david davis would resign today. there are talks all the time of floundering out. even now, david davis is expected to resign, just at a slightly later date. there is not much point in either of them resigning now. there is a date and michel barnier will probably say no, i did agree with this end state. we can kind of see what will happen now. the british government has spelt out its so—called backstop position and if the eu preferred this, why would they bother to do... the eu do not like the british version of the backstop. their position is to reject everything the british come up with and wait until there is another concession and another concession. right now i think the backstop will be the most favourite option forthe eu. they have to be careful. if they are too intransigent and parliament does not vote for any deal, the default will be no deal or worse trade deal. peter bone, you are a fervent

brexiteer, basically, the government is taking us towards the backstop deal which is a pretty soft brexit? it is not even a soft brexit, we are not coming out. the idea there is a date in the document, it is an aspiration. i read it. the more i read it the more depressed i got. basically, it allows us to stay effectively in the eu indefinitely. they have crossed a red line, it is not acceptable and many of my colleagues on the backbenches will not support it and i will not support it. many tories agree with peter. we will be leaving the eu in march, we get control of the borders, the money will be going down, these are pretty big wins. people like peter say if we are still in the customs union it is not brexit but a lot of tories want this over. you are a brexiteer whose 0k about the customs union. it is not something i would die in a ditch over. what has happened to rescue the hard brexit you want?

it might be mr barnier. he might say oh, god, we cannot agree to any of this and we effectively fall out. that is not what i want to see. i want to say we have tried negotiation, it is a bit of a mess, we will go for a world trade deal, we will have no more negotiations, we will come out of the eu at the end of march next year. we will save £39 million to start with. we can impose our own immigration policy, we can get back our own fisheries, we can make our own laws... no transition? yes, and now we have got enough time to put it in place. but are we ready? we don't have the customs posts. it feels like they have been doing more preparation for this than we have. i would argue we don't have to put any tariffs on some in northern ireland we will not have a border. that is against wto rules, i have to point that out.

don't they say that has to be sincere cooperation? that means if you have got a line, they could not impose tariffs on us. the legal situation, i did care, i just want to come out. let's announce it and deliver what the british people wanted. and you could not come out to a very soft brexit for five years while britain thinks, considers and works out how to harden brexit if that is what you want to do? i note is difficult to remember but two years ago we had a referendum and we voted to come out of this wretched thing. the people voted to come out. if we don't come out we will be in big trouble. do you think the original version of brexit can happen? i think it's unlikely. borisjohnson said no deal was

better than a bad deal. but the prime minister has shown today with the language she used in this brexit blueprint that has now been published, she is in a compromising mode. she called it an unpalatable option. i don't think there are many senior brexiteers who are in line with boris and willing to crash out of wto rules. there are three sorts of brexit. there is out, there is a big negotiation and there is what theresa may once in the middle, which is a bespoke negotiation. and this person who knows her well said that is impossible. it is a big negotiation, or get out. and we are likely to be dragged into the worst situation if we don't do something about it now. we can't announce in the autumn that it is effectively what people call a no deal, because then there really is no time to prepare. there isn't time to prepare now! we are going to disagree on that! theresa may has to get rid

of all these remainer officials and spads and put someone in charge who actually believes in brexit like david davis. don't dominate, pete. peter's other problem is the parliamentary arithmetic. what are the rebels doing? next week, we have the withdrawal bill coming back and somebody on the pro—european side said it will be a big parliamentary event but they don't think there will be a big government defeat. the government has tabled some amendments. essentially, the deal between theresa may and the pro—europeans is as she says, don't defeat me because you will weaken my hand in the council in brussels where i am doing things that you like. but you can have your chance in july. the trade bill will come back to them. the rebels have already put down an amendment on the eea and is already an amendment to take the uk into a customs union. is that going potentially win?

right now, i can't see any version of brexit that will get majority support in parliament. if there isn't, then no deal is the default. parliament has already voted for no deal with article 50, people forget. so i would say there is a non—negligible chance that we might end up with this hard brexit not because people want it, but because they can't agree on what they want instead. lucy, who benefits from the theresa may strategy of kick the road and delaying what feels like the ultimate showdown between the hard and soft version? well, there is nothing else she can really do. she is between a rock and a hard place. i think there is parliamentary arithmetic in the commons to keep the uk inside a customs union, so she is stuck with enough tory pro—eu rebels, numbering about 13 or 14, in the commons. 0n the other side, you have the brexiteers like peter. and with the summer season,

parties and warm prosecco upon us, they could be planning to oust her if they think she will not go their way. back into the season of warm prosecco, my goodness. thank you very much. the supreme court reached a kind of verdict on abortion in northern ireland today. i say a kind of verdict, because both sides got a victory of sorts. the court was very clear that the northern ireland restrictions on abortion are incompatible with human rights legislation but the justices also said that as it was not an actual victim that had initiated the action — it was the northern ireland human rights commission — the court couldn't make a formal decision. well, a woman who was denied an abortion in northern ireland will try to re—initiate the case, but by legal means, or political ones, there is a lively campaign for a change of law in northern ireland.

0ur reporter nawal al maghafi has been there to hear both sides of the argument. hi, everyone. anyone want to open up on westminster? on thursday, the supreme court is about to issue its judgment about whether or not northern ireland is compliant with human rights in relation to not allowing women to have abortions when there is a fatal abnormality or when she is pregnant as a result of rape. i have come to a campaign meeting by a pro—choice group in derry. they are planning their next moves in their bid to overturn the virtual ban on abortion in northern ireland, hoping to follow the referendum result in the republic. you can feel the excitement. when they see thousands of people on the streets in northern ireland saying, we want abortion rights now, they are not going to be able to ignore it. there is so much enthusiasm in this room. many people in northern ireland have been galvanised by the result in the south. but now the question is how they will be able to make a change here too. i know people in my family and my community, people who i never

would imagine would havejoined a rally or spoken out on facebook. the tapping point is here and it's coming. it's been a long time in the works. this woman has campaigned for abortion rights for a0 years. we know women who have punched themselves in the stomach, who have drunk bleat and turn themselves down stairs. they have done all of those things to try to end their pregnancies. i am in my 60s now and the reason i have been doing this since i was in my 20s is because i worked with a woman whose sister—in—law died and left four small children behind her because before 1967, she tried to cause her own abortion using a knitting needle and died. abortion laws in northern ireland haven't changed since 1967, when it was legalised in the rest of the uk. terminations are only allowed here when the mother's life

is at risk. in recent years, women who have taken abortion pills have been given suspended sentences, although those who terminate can face potential life injail. but public opinion in northern ireland is definitely changing. in a 2016 poll, over 80% said abortion should be legal in cases of serious foetal abnormality. 50% said abortion should definitely be legal in the case of rape or incest. one recent poll found that over half supported abortion up to 12 weeks. the current proposal for legalisation in the republic of ireland. but for now, many women in northern ireland resort to illegally buying abortion pills online. kate, not her real name, is a single mother living with her parents. i was single and was dealing with an abusive ex—partner. i knew i could not come home pregnant again. i came home pregnant the year before and it was shameful. it was like, what have you done? you have ruined your life.

i knew that if i came home pregnant again, i would be made homeless. ijust looked at the baby i had in my arms and i thought, you deserve better. at university, kate found someone who provided her aid advice and some abortion pills. but she had to travel three hours on a bus and find a secure place to take them. so i took the pill. 2a hours later, i took the next four that dissolve in your mouth. i could only stay one more day and for some reason, i didn't start to bleed until 2a hours after the time it said you would bleed. so i ended up bleeding on the bus on the way home while holding a five—month—old baby on a three—hour bus. that was when my bleeding started very heavily. did that scare you? at that point, i would have liked to have asked a doctor and got some support. i was too petrified, in case the doctor found out why i was really there. legally, they would have to report you to the police. and what would happen then?

as far as i'm aware, it is potentially life imprisonment. and for me, i have a baby who i love so much and i was having an abortion because that was the best decision and the best outcome for the child i had to have a future. how did you feel about the situation? the abortion, for me, and taking the pills, i found a practical solution. but also, i'm a mother, a sister, and auntie, a cousin, a granddaughter. but i'm also a criminal in the eyes of the law now. i have broken the law, and to this day that makes me feel heartbroken. out in belfast city centre, pro—life campaigners are fighting for abortion to remain illegal in northern ireland. but the referendum result in the south has left its mark. obviously, we were incredibly disappointed with the result,

but the fight does still go on. there is an incredible amount of pressure on northern ireland now because of the decision, but we are still battling. we are going to fight this and northern ireland is still a beacon of hope. do you worry about what is to come if the law changes in northern ireland? what will that mean for you? we are hoping the law is not going to change in northern ireland. northern ireland should be like any other democracy where politicians from northern ireland make the laws in northern ireland. politicians who were voted in here should make the laws. westminster should not be putting in to force abortion on northern ireland. as long as westminster realise that and don't impose abortion on northern ireland, which they have no right to do since abortion has always been a devolved issue in northern ireland, there is no risk. but mps from across all parties in westminster are pushing for a change in the law in northern ireland, except the dup.

we caught up with one of their mps, jeffrey donaldson. this is a devolved issue. the 1998 agreement was a finely balanced constitutional settlement. if you upset that settlement, if you set aside the principle of devolution, you will undermine their entire constitutional arrangements for northern ireland. for now, there are many women we have spoken to that are being forced to use illegal abortion pills because of the laws in northern ireland. what do you think about that? we don't want women using illegal abortion pills, clearly. but people in northern ireland are clear. none of the main political parties, sinn fein, the sdlp, the uup, none of them support extending the 1967 abortion act to northern ireland. that reflects the will of the people of northern ireland. we need to look at the sensitive cases you have referred to come up with solutions. and that is what we are committed to doing. but in northern ireland, political paralysis means very

little is happening. the devolved parliament in stormont has not sat since january last year. and that means that those women deliberating over abortion will have little choice but to wait, unless westminster decides to act. that's it for tonight. this weekend, it's planned that tens of thousands of women will march across britain to mark the 100th anniversary of the suffragette movement. so we leave you with one of the most famous suffragettes, emily davison, who died under the hooves of king george v's horse at epsom in 1913. no other film footage of her was known to exist, apart from that of her death. that is, until the bfi recently put online their suffragettes on film collection — including one from 1910, called "scenes in the record demonstration of suffragettes". it showed a suffragette march.

and someone apparently spotted emily davison. so here she is. good night. good evening. it has been another warm day right across the uk, although we lack sunshine in the south and even had a few showers both here and towards the north. the south, the reason we have the showers is this low pressure is winding itself close by across france throw in some showers and more cloud our way. that will continue, that process, through the night, moving further northwards to northern england, north wales and the midlands. showers we have had further north will diminish. under clear skies it will be quite. not as cold as recent notes with more cloud filtering and from the east across scotla nd filtering and from the east across scotland and that will take its time

to clear away during the day on friday. so it will be awhile before sun comes out what it is scotland and northern ireland where we will get the best of the sunshine, perhaps northern england. but for parts of northern england, and the midlands, somewhat cloud and sharp showers, isolated thunder. further south and east, a few showers and hazy sunshine making its way through the clouds. either way, hazy sunshine making its way through the clouds. eitherway, cloudy hazy sunshine making its way through the clouds. either way, cloudy or sunny, it will be a lovely warm day across the board. the low 20s except on the east coast in that cooling breeze. but still some sunshine and some strong sunshine at that. and very high levels of pollen as we have had this week, unfortunately no relief in sight. from friday to saturday, a repeat performance with a cloud diminishing and misty low cloud returning. as we go into the weekend, quite sluggish weather pattern at the moment. the emphasis has to be a lot of warmth and dry weather. there will be dry comic showers popping up here and there. some of them moving their way across

the channel into the channel islands and across in the southern parts. the others, further north, tending to be developed by the heat on the convergence of the winds. either way, they will be fairly well scattered. a lot of dry and warm weather in between. similar stories saturday night into sunday. too close for comfort, so again it will threaten some showers moving across the channel in the southern counties. elsewhere, given the strength of the sun at this time of year and the warmth and humidity we have in the air at the moment, temperatures will allow the showers to develop as we go through the afternoon. they will be lively as well, with hail and plunder potentially. then we will see a change as we head into the middle pa rt change as we head into the middle part of next week and the jet stream sta rts part of next week and the jet stream starts to strengthen and we will have business as usual by next week. welcome to newsday on the bbc.

i'm sharanjit leyl, in singapore. the headlines: after meeting the japanese prime minister, donald trump says next week's summit could end the korean war. i really believe we have the potential to do something incredible for the world and it is my honour to be involved. meanwhile other g7 leaders gather in canada, facing deep divisions with the us on trade. i'm kasia madera, in london. also in the programme: was the red planet always a dead planet? nasa says it's found something which suggests there might really have been life on mars. with organic molecules in rocks, they could