was talking as though it was already piece in our time. they have great beaches, you see that every time they are exploding their cannons into the ocean. i think, wouldn't that make a great combo? instead of doing that, you could have the best hotels in the world. but many look at the text the two leaders sign and found nothing there. we will hear from america's ambassador to nato and ask the trump will be getting a nobel prize any time soon. also tonight... the eyes to the right, 324. the nose to the left, 298. tonight... the eyes to the right, 324. the nose to the left, 298m you know what that means for brexit, you're doing better than most. a complex the commons between mps and the government. we will ask the chief rebel to explain who won. and have mothers been stigmatised when they choose not to their baby? new advice from the royal college of midwives says women's wishes must be respected. how can it take so long

to work out such a no—brainer? hello. put aside the theatre for a moment, what actually happened today? the us agreed to suspend its military exercises, or war games, with south korea — a new concession. then, on top of that, there was a vague declaration that said very little. it repeated the loose commitment of the north to work towards denuclearisation and, in return, offered a loose us security guarantee. so, that's what substantively happened. but then, there was also the theatre. the handshake, the flags, the posing for cameras, the small talk and the big talk. one senses that the show was the real action. the optics were everything. the bigging up of a dictator's ego — i mean kimjong—un there — in the hope that he'll follow the right course. the idea is that the flattery is too attractive for him to lose, by following the wrong one. overall, it was a remarkable sight, even if it was oversold. we'll talk through it shortly, but first, here's our diplomatic editor mark urban's take. this was spectacle,

but was it diplomacy? the president ordered air force one to head back across the pacific. his interlocutor left later on a borrowed chinese plane, and although he caused a stir on the streets of singapore, it was not clear who was paying kim's hotel bill. this was not a relationship of equals. and that applies to free media as well, and we processed the outcome. what is your reaction to what happened in the last 24 hours? absolutely stunning! kim jong—un has already scored a victory and if he gets an invitation to the white house, that is the icing on the cake. for kim, just having the meeting was a success and an opening to the outside world. as for his reliability in delivering, we should not expect much, it was suggested.

even though he said complete denuclearisation on the korean peninsula, including me, no north korean living in south korea believes that. i really believe a lot of great things can happen. yes, go ahead. during the long press conference, the president and the fight his own achievement, but even he conceded there was much to be worked out. you said you define success by north korea giving up its nuclear weapons. well, that is what they are doing. kim jong—un, for a complete verifiable, irreversible... can you say why you did not secure the details in the agreement? there is no time.

i'm here one day, we are together for many hours intensively. but the process is now going to take place and i would be surprised if they haven't even started already. they have started, they blew up their testing site. how do you ensure that north korea is not all talk, no action? can you ensure anything, can i ensure you are going to be able to sit down properly? you can't ensure anything. all i can say is, they want to make a deal. that is what i do my whole life, it's been deals, i've done great at it. there can now be confidence building measures starting with halting military exercises. under the circumstances that we are negotiating a very comprehensive complete deal, i think it is inappropriate to be having war games. so, number one, we save money, a lot! two, it really is something that i think they very much appreciated. and that obsession with money

and taking advantage of america emerged again when asked why he treats kim with more deference and fellow g7 leaders. i would like to involve congress, yes, and i have a good relationship with justin trudeau, i really do, other than he had a news conference that he had because he assumed i was on an aeroplane and not watching. he learns that will cost a lot of money for the people of canada. but there are regional dynamics also. what do you president trump expect kim jong—un to do about the human rights record regarding the north korean people? it was discussed, it was discussed relatively briefly compared to denuclearisation. obviously, that is where we started and where we ended. but they will be doing things. and i think he wants to do things. i think he wants to you would be very surprised, very smart, very good negotiator. in south korea, president moon watched today with

evident satisfaction. he wants improve relations rapidly and could move on his own to build bridges with the north. china will also be pivotal, having facilitated this summit, it may feel the results already justify an easing of sanctions on the north. we see the north korean national carrier is now flying to multiple cities in china again. there are reports on coal imports, of oil transfers at sea and elsewhere. and if you wanted to rent an office in one of the chinese border towns near north korea, you would be paying twice or three times as much today as you were a month ago. and that is indicative of the actor black market in the korean market that has surged that. in the aftermath of president trump's announcement that he wanted to hold a summit with kim jong—un. there are many different

understandings of what went on in singapore, even among those who were in the room. picture everybody so we look nice and handsome and then! beautiful. watch kim's reaction to trump's joking. the president leaves the summit with the headline grabbing event. we will meet again. it will please his base, the promise of avoiding war and cutting military costs, but may be seen by many in the region as opening the way to normalisation with north korea. —— well, let's hear now from a us diplomat on the agreement reached, and what it says about the conduct of us foreign policy more generally. earlier, i spoke to the us ambassador to nato. she was appointed by president trump last year, a former republican

senator, kay bailey hutchison. team trump divides into two — those who like to stir things up, and those who like to calm them down. she falls into the latter category. i asked her if we should be worried there's nothing concrete we can say about what north korea will give up. i think it's a very strong first meeting with an actual agreement signed, in which kim jong—un signs an agreement that the denuclearisation of the korean peninsula is an agreed item. that's something... moving towards it, i think, isn't it? is what the actual agreement says, i think, isn't it? towards the denuclearisation. well, there has to be a negotiation, which is acknowledged, of course. there has to be a verification, from our point of view. but everyone acknowledges, including they both did, that there will be a vigorous negotiation for the ability to determine, with experts, that all of the nuclear facilities are identified. and then, of course, destroyed to end their nuclear capability. so this is the start.

i mean, it's clearly not the end. i don't know, can you help us make sense of us foreign policy today? because the president came out of the g7, his trade adviser said ofjustin trudeau, there's a special place in hell reserved forjustin trudeau, the prime minister of canada. and yet, he is so gushing about one of the world's most brutal and unpleasant dictators, kim jong—un. well, first of all, we have very strong allies, of which canada is one. and we have ups and downs and agreements and disagreements with all of our allies. i see it in nato every day. but it doesn't affect another area. and, for instance, at nato, canada is one of our strongest allies. as are uk and france and germany.

and we do things together, with a common goal, at nato. but they insult each other. i mean, you know, it's a completely new style of diplomacy to speak about an ally like that, isn't it? i mean, we are in completely uncharted territory. and the west is desperately trying to work out what the heck you do. and whether to take it seriously, orjust to ignore the words. i don't think personal observations or criticisms are necessary, but sometimes, some people operate in a different kind of way. and generally, it's for a purpose, and i think you saw that with president trump and kim jong—un. i mean, early on, it was not friendly at all and they traded insults. but it seems that they understood each other, they tried to understand how they were communicating. and i think what's

happened today is amazing. i think the success of a first meeting between the head of north korea and the us president, i think is history making. what is going to happen if north korea doesn't deliver, as it hasn't on previous occasions? we've been this far before, it hasn't delivered. what happens this time? i will only correct you in a small way and say we haven't been this far before. we haven't had a sit down and a signed agreement for the denuclearisation... no, but we've had the promise of denuclearisation before. i mean, we've had the same words, we haven't had the same theatre. i think we're a bit further than we've ever been before. but having said that, i think if north korea doesn't come through with opening the books and making sure that the experts know where things are, then the sanctions will stay in place. and i think that's a good part

of what brought them to the table in the first place. yourjob is ambassador to nato, you've got a summit next month, a nato summit next month. you must be dreading it! the tension between... literally, people talking about the breakdown of the west as a concept. with a president who has turned on his allies and linked trade deficits to all sorts of other areas. trade deficits to defence. do you approve of the president linking trade and defence? well, i think we must stay on defence in nato and talk about burden sharing on defence, and i'm very focused on the security umbrella that nato is for our western alliance, for europe, for north america, canada and the united states. and the 2% is obviously europe's embarrassment because it doesn't

deliver that, by and large. the 2% target of gdp to spend on defence. but do you agree with the president's framing of the issue, that the united states is in nato as a grand favour to other countries, as opposed to a mutual benefit for all the countries? if you look at it clearly, it is a fa ct if you look at it clearly, it is a fact that it the united states puts in more than any of the allies. so, from a standpoint of do we do the most and is it very beneficial to europe, which has been in two world wa i’s europe, which has been in two world wars and the purpose of nato was to keep that from happening again. then, of course that is on the european side of getting a benefit. the benefit to america is that we

have 29 countries that are freedom loving, rule of law, human rights exit in countries that work together. —— accepting. so we are not going it alone. we are not doing all of that i ourselves with no backup. nice to talk to you. thank you. joining me now from palo alto is the former unites states ambassador to south korea, kathleen stephens. and here in the studio isjieun baek, the author of north korea's hidden revolution. were you just swept up in the hype today or casting a more cynical eye over it? i wish i was more optimistic with many of the summit watchers. i must say i watched all of the different events that unfolded with a healthy dose of scepticism and that scepticism being anchored in history and a lot of the facts on the ground in north korea that we know on how the country runs and so i must say i do view this through a lens of scepticism. kathleen stevens, it

looked as though flattery was the foreign policy. trying to flatter kim jong—un was the way to bring him in from the cold. do you think that that can work in the way we would like it to? no, i do think flattery alone can work. i think it is questionable whether it is even a good opening gambit. i would say that this is a very tramp like spectacle, i think given the alternative is, even in its unconventionalform i welcome the fact that these men met and i think it is a start. i noticed that kim jungle did not do a lot of flattery at least in his very restricted public comments. and i think frankly that president trump, i think it was worth the price if you like of elevating him to get dialogue going and move the diplomatic track.

but i think it went a little bit too far in some of the comments made. you must concede that nothing else really seems to work and so it does not cost much, and airfare, a couple of hundred americans going to singapore for a couple of days, in that sense it does contrast positively with everything that maybe president obama said. well we americans do like to think that we are always the main actors here but things also, i think they changed on the korean peninsula both in terms of the plant and timing of kimjungle and the new leadership in south korea playing a big role. but i think this is not the way i would have set up a summit but i think it was worth a go. i would agree that the statement that came from that was quite disappointing and leaves a lot of work and a lot of questions and with all due respect to ambassador hutchison, the statement did not go as far actually as we went in 2005 under present george w bush and the joint statement of principles or indeed in the 1990s. so we have got to make up for lost ground with a more challenging situation now it is a big challenge for president trump and ijust

want to see what happens going forward. what does this mean in north korea because by flattering conjunction you can increase his legitimacy? i wish i knew how this impacts miscreant people and as a state. i think just from general observations it will boost his domestic appeal at home. this is just based on what he seeks to continue and he has a long way to go, here's the young man and without tiring any other major interventions he has many decades in power so i think it will boost his standing at home not because he's lucky enough to meet the american president but he is a peer to the most powerful man in the world, president trump. from what i can gather president trump did say in the news conference that they briefly discussed issues behind closed doors i think it was a huge disappointment, what better gesture could the leader of the free world make than to bring up a very critical component of a nation that we would welcome to be a peer country to the international community of nations. it seems that unconventional diplomacy has done something, playing a video to kim jong—un and blowing hot and cold,

clearly president trump thinks that this is achieved something. do think that he now goes much further with unconventional diplomacy so to speak? i think for president trump he is going to continue to put a big emphasis on the show and the ceremony and actually that is important to north korea as well and i agree that this will give kim jong—un greater domestic publicity and that is partly the intention by president trump, making him feel more secure.

maybe that is not a bad thing although i think we all have reason to feel some qualms about it. i also think president trump may be onto something in terms of emphasising the attraction of economic development for north korea, this is a young man who hopes to be in power 50 years from now and also the leader of the country that looks more like south korea or china or some of the asian tigers. so i think appealing to that economic development is not a bad ploy, not a new one but my concern is kim jong—un went to the summit thinking he could have his cake and eat it. that is to retain some nuclear capability and also he already has some relief from sanctions just because of the lower tensions but that eventually he may be able

to emerge with acquiescence and nuclear programme and north korea as a more normal state. who do you think was the winner today, some have written about as kim playing donald trump like a fool, to you buy that take? i do not, i think both leaders view of the summit as a success, in their own rights, they both have a success to take back home and to please their base. not that the north korean leader has to please any base as a dictator but i think the people who did not win or the north korean dissidents of his country and human rights issue was not addressed at all and there's nothing he can take home that can improve the well—being of the average north korean citizen but up thank you both very much. forget singapore — today has been one of the momentous

days in the path to brexit. what made it is so potentially explosive was that it was the ultimate fight over who's in charge. the government, or mps? which it is matters — because mps overwhelmingly voted for remain, by about three to one. so, more powerfor mps probably makes a brexit deal more likely, and a softer brexit at that. more power for the government probably means a harder brexit, and the possible threat of no deal at all. well, in a crucial vote this afternoon, the government faced an attempt by remainer mps to increase pa rliament‘s power in this. and it started inauspiciously for theresa may, with one of her ministers resigning. resigning ministerial office has been an incredibly difficult decision. it was in order to support my right honourable friend, my learned friend, and indeed trusted friend in his attempt to amend

the government amendment to lords amendment 19. and i'm devastated to have to have taken this decision. the government won the vote against extra power for mps through a meaningful vote. but at a cost. it had to make a last minute concession to those remainer mps to get them on board. i further reiterate the commitment that i've given on behalf of the government of the dispatch box to further discuss the matter with my right honourable friend the member for beaconsfield and others. i am particularly interested in part a and also part b of his proposals and want to use that as the basis of a structured discussion as we reach the lords amendments. what was he on about? it was relatively technical, but mps were promised the power to force the government to come up with a new plan, if the government deal was no good, or if the government failed to reach a deal. so — does this change the potential course of brexit? nick watt is with me now. just what was that compromise concession the government made?

the ability to remain, to have the power of parliament to stop and odile brexit but that there should be limits on that and parliament should not be able to direct brexit negotiations. that will be done in two ways, they think theresa may has taken a big step agreeing that the government should look at two of the big ideas set forward by dominic grieve, that parliament should have a vote on what the government will do if parliament votes down the brexit deal and secondly if by the end of november there's no deal on the government should come to parliament and parliament should have a say on what will happen then. remainers, are they happy today? there is unease tonight and conflicting accounts of the meeting that the prime minister had with those 14 remainers. i spoke to one tory who was at the meeting and said the prime ministers said something along these lines, this is a matter of trust, i give you my word, we will look at these causes with a view to looking at whether they should incorporate elements of them but this evening after that meeting the prime minister met some levers and one of those who was that the meeting

with the prime minister said that she said to them that she had not specifically agreed to table amendments based on the dominic reeve once, she had simply agreed to discussions based around reflecting on his thinking. so i spoke to one of those remain mps after that and they said you could just about reconcile those two apparently contradictory statements but what you cannot reconcile with that is that the chief whip telling them i privately give you an assurance that we will move on the dominic grieve amendments. this mp said to me that if the government walks away from this, it is an unprintable word about point. now how either brexiteers this evening? well in the camp of david davies there is concern that if you go along with the idea of the vote in november and you would trample on one of his red lines, this void that parliament cannot direct the brexit negotiations,

the fear you'd be in that tory territory. and i hear if that happens it is talk of guerrilla attack six, talk of a confidence vote but important to say that david davis has this evening released a statement with the full agreement of downing street saying that that red line will not be crossed. thank you. joining me now is the man of the hour — former attorney general dominic grieve. it was his amendment that has seemingly forced this key concession from the prime minister. and also with me is his conservative colleague and member of the brexit—backing erg grouping of mps, john penrose. dominic grieve, we start with you. what did the government promise you today to get you to vote with them on your own amendment? just for background there was lords amendment which could have been voted on and on which the government might have been defeated.

i could understand some of the government reservations so i came up with a compromise amendment of my own. that could not be voted on today, it could only be dealt with by a discussion with government unless the government had been prepared to accept it in its entirety and so there was found to be a discussion and that discussion was positive. so positive is enabled quite a large number of my colleagues to vote to remove the lords amendment and substitute the government amendment to which in due course we will have to tinker around with it in the lords after discussion to improve it. i have every confidence having spoken to the prime minister that we will be able to do that. did they give you the date, like november 30, we have to have a deal by then? the dates were not an issue, if there was any sort of problem or area, the last one of the three amendments which provided a mandatory instruction to government was one

that they were concerned about and wanted to discuss. all this seems to me to be absolute normal process of compromise and ultimately an air to try to improve a piece of legislation and inevitably where there is a difference of view you have to negotiate a compromise and i hope that that will happen. if it does not happen then obviously this is not the end of the matter because ultimately it is very likely that this amendment will come back. this provides a sensible period of time to try to resolve an issue, consensually, sensibly and not in any way to undermine the government or indeed to have a dig at others. you're saying they'd better not be screwing you around with promises to take you seriously, or you could come back next week even. on a day the government chooses, but it has to come back at some point.

my hope is that this is all going to be resolved very sensibly. and i have no reason to doubt or distrust the prime minister in what she told us. and i hope very much that we will come to a satisfactory solution. so this evening, we cannot and will not agree to the government binding our hands in negotiations. i thought at one point you had got that, but you are saying you accept that... i think there could be some misunderstandings. ultimately, parliament can bind the government and get rid of it. but it can't micromanage the government. i think i'd take that statement as being an expression that we can't have micromanagement of the process i parliament. now, that is something that we can look at, but what we have been looking

at is to find destruction way in which there can be a guarantee that the government cannot simply dispense with the parliament because it is inconvenient for it. and if the government tries to do that, any government will not survive. so i think we are in danger of getting carried away into an apocalyptic vision. you have been very nice and you have the threat in your back pocket and everybody can hear both sides! do you agree with dominic grieve on what the government said to the robert coles? i will read you a headline in the sun tomorrow. may the farce be with you! the prime minister has said different things to remain mps and it looks like she is double—dealing. i don't think that is the case. i was not in the room whereas dominic was. but it is into me as dominic was saying, we have a period where we can get together and hack out some sort of compromise. and we have had 12 votes today, we voted for ages and with 11, we delivered compromise

after compromise. there really was only one that mattered today. as it turned out, yes. if you had this conversation two days ago, we would have been talking about the customs union and there was an agreement on that. we have customs union injuly so that has not gone away. we got to the point where we forged agreements on other things, we have one more to go, it is not done yet, dominic is right, but it can be done and with a bit of goodwill on all sides, it should be done. what really seems clear is that the government's vision of brexit cannot happen. just tell me how it can that we are out of the ecj's jurisdiction and out of the customs union and the single market, paint the scenario by which that happens with the deal, to parliament. at the moment, all we have got is the bill in front of others, others will come forward

about these things. the current bill says we are leaving on the 29th of march next year and we have got agreement on some words around things like the customs union, which would involve us being out. the eu will not give you the government's brexit, so the choice will be facing dominic grieve and parliament in november — hard brexit, no transition, we just fall off a cliff or we have a soft brexit sorting out northern ireland and that is the choice, the only way it can go. i disagree. it would be wrong to try to prejudge the results of the negotiations for a start and it is always very easy to assume the other side will be obviously to you but they have skin in the game, they have an upside, they don't want to give it a way which we can help them with. i can't see why it is not possible

to get an agreement but it will not be easy and there will be compromise. the important thing is not to spend all our time negotiating to get to a point where we have a position to negotiate with brussels. thank you both very much. the royal college of midwives has published a new position on breastfeeding. the rcm line is still that exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of a baby's life is best. but what has changed is the adoption of a more tolerant approach to those who don't follow that guideline. so the published statement now says: "if, after being given appropriate information, advice and support on breastfeeding, a woman chooses not to do so, or to give formula as well as breastfeeding, her choice must be respected". it may sound rather obvious — that women must be respected for their choice — but we know that when it comes to breastfeeding,

women often can't win. there's stigma to breastfeeding in public, and stigma from not breastfeeding enough. so, is this a significant change? and why has it taken so long? i'm joined by lauren marks—clee. she is a mother who said the pressures around breastfeeding was a contributor to her post—natal depression. she has now set up ‘the parenting chapter, a company which provides online parenting classes. also from salford, gill walton, who is the chief executive of the royal college of midwives. if i can start with you, just take me through what has actually changed and how significant change you think it is. the position says infant feeding, beading all babies, in the past, we had a position that really promoted breast—feeding. because the breast—feeding rates in this country were very low. they are still low. we have about 80% of women starting to breast—feed but they do give up quite early. but it is about making sure that we respect women's choices. that we trust them. and if women choose to bottle feed, we support them in the same way to make sure they do that safely and that they don't feel guilty. lauren, at your experience, you tell us what your experience

was when you had your son. we went down the typical pub, —— we went down the typical path, we attended the antenatal classes and there was quite a bit of detail about the physical aspect of breast—feeding and brush over about bottle feeding, so we said, we are going to breast—feed. the first moment you are left your own devices which is typically feeding your child, we dehydrated him and we went, oh, my gosh, we failed! i felt like a failure, that was the first time that i thought, i'm not a good mother, i felt. because that rest is best, i failed to deliver. he felt the pressure. absolutely, yes. how did it pan out, did it get better and more successful? it got worse before it became better and i became obsessed.

we dehydrated my son again. it sounds madness thinking about it and my husband said, please, we have to give him formula. i said, don't give it to him! we had everything going wrong. the professionals i saw were just reluctant to talk about a plan b, that i think your mental health is being compromised. give him the bottle, it is not the end of the world? he is still going to be alive and when we did give him a bottle, he enjoyed it. was the pressure your own internal mental pressure or external? the evidence is it is somewhat better to breast—feed. was that coming from within? i think the education, when you go into these antenatal classes which is what most parents do, you like sponges first time and you take what an expert says as gospel and you go along with it. as a parent, you want to do your best and when breast is attached to best, that is what you want to do. it is that plan b. a lot of people would say, why has it taken so long to say to people there is a plan b, if you are struggling,

please don't beat yourself up about it? that is absolutely right. i think plan b is really important. and that we do that in a clear and supportive way just like we support all mothers. it is really important women don't have experiences like lauren, that sounds like a really sad story. it is a story we hear often and we have had women say even today, they are really pleased we are taking this approach to really trust them and support their choices and put extra emphasis on making sure they don't feel guilty. a lot of people would be absolutely amazed that women have been made to feel guilty about it. it seems, i wonder how big a mistake you think it has been that the policy has been in this way until today? i don't think the policy is a mistake, i think it is right to promote breast—feeding because of the benefits

for the babies and the mothers, but it is notjust health professionals that make mothers feel guilty, sometimes it is internal pressure, friends and families or other mothers whojudge. we want to support and notjudge and that is really important. do you accept as a goal we should try and encourage mothers to breast—feed? the british rate is quite low, fewer than half mothers here are breast—feeding after eight weeks and after six months, it is quite low. absolutely, no one can argue with the backs and i don't think even gil would suggest that, but there needs to be an equal education, a bottle feeding or breast—feeding.

more evidence around the scientific benefits, presented in, it could be, it might be, it should be. also, the emotional side of breast—feeding and bottle—feeding because it is very focused on the physical but how might you feel, a failure, frustrated? you can turn that around, it is not the end, there is a way out. you can mix and match a bit if you are struggling? absolutely, yes. thank you both very much indeed. a quick look at the papers, no more games, trump gives him peace. a similar picture in the guardian. brexit, the rebels consider you to. the telegraph, similar pictures on all of them! ministers meet anti—brexit group of a second referendum. a cartoon said the government survives another day. in the financial times, tory rebels face theresa may into brexit come down. that's it for tonight. before we go, just time to tell you that tomorrow, they're awarding the 2018 classic brit awards at the royal albert hall. however, i'm afraid the event is only being shown on the third

channel — aka itv — on sunday. so, obviously, no newsnight viewer would want to watch that. to make up for the disappointment, we bring you one of the nominees for female artist of the year. playing live the aria from bach's goldberg variations, beatrice rana. goodnight. . some beautiful, tranquil music. there are big changes on the way. while the tables at fine, we'll see some sunny while the tables at fine, we'll see some sunny spells later on, things will turn wet and windy. particularly in the northern areas of. it is because the jet stream is breaking back. a long time since we had a weather chart like this. the jet stream racing across the electric. high areas of clout in our

direction. where you see the dips in the cloud on a satellite, that so we are developing areas of low pressure. this one in particular, is going to wind itself up and bring us a really wet and windy weather on wednesday night. we start the day underneath the influence of a ridge of high pressure. as bigger to what is left of tonight into the first pa rt is left of tonight into the first part of tomorrow morning it looks fine. some early sunshine. as we go on through the day, will will start to thicken up the cloud from the west. could be the odd shower and then into northern ireland and western scotland things will turn wet. some outbreaks of rain and the win will start to straighten as well. before that happens, can produce in the sunnier spots up to around 22 degrees of. is to go through tomorrow night this is where things get very lively indeed. particle you cross the north—west the uk. you can see northern ireland, scotland, these heady bursts of rain piling in and the wind will start because of low pressure. a lot of isobars on this chart also should together. white

and unusual weather chart for this point in mid june because we are going to see some really strong wind, we could see severe gale, wind gust of 50, 60, to spur our and perhaps stronger in places. in glasgow, aberdeen, if you're planning to travel on thursday morning it will be worth keeping in touch with your bbc local radio station because these gales or severe gales could well cause some trouble issues. on top of that, we have got some heavy rain to content with as well. a pretty rough start to thursday, but things will improve. out area of low pressure will slide away and the wind will piece —— ease and the rain will as. it there will be some styles of sunshine around and in the south, 22 degrees. as we head towards the end of the week and into the weekend, some spells of sunshine around. a little bit of rain around from time to time and those two bridges still ripping up. someone —— wet and windy

weather tree wednesday night but they should start off fairly quietly. good night. hello and a very good morning from singapore. i'm rico hizon. it's 7am on wednesday the 13th ofjune, as this city state recovers from hosting that extraordinary kim—trump summit. and i'm babita sharma. in the next 26 minutes we'll bring you all the big moments and answer some of the key questions. welcome to our special coverage here on newsday. it finally happened. the first handshake between a sitting us president and a north korean leader. did kim get the better of it all? trump shocks the region with this pledge on military exercises. we will be stopping the wargames, which will save a tremendous