warm welcome despite his team being the worst ranked in the tournament. the team must be good because the people have interest in it. lot of pressure on you? no pressure. it is a normaljob. the best players will compete for the best prize, with the countdown almost complete for a contest that will be as compelling as it is controversial. an italian ship carrying more than 900 migrants has been allowed to dock on the island of sicily just days after italy refused to take another rescue ship carrying hundreds of other migrants. was allowed to dock because it's an italian ship. the diciotti, which picked up the migrants off the coast of libya, was allowed to dock because it's an italian ship. on sunday, italy closed all its ports to the franco—german boat, aquarius, provoking an international outcry, as our correspondent james reynolds reports. france has called the actions of

italy irresponsible. the response is simple, do not criticise us when we have taken in far more migrants than you. translation: we have nothing to learn from anyone in terms of solidarity. our history does not deserve to be reproached in these terms by members of the french government, who i hope apologise. as if to make italy's point, this morning its coastguards brought in more than 900 migrants rescued from the mediterranean. this country remains open to migrants so long as they are brought in under an italian flag. italy has a legal obligation to bring to safety all those it finds at sea. but the new italian populist government doesn't want these, its newest arrivals, to stay in this country. it's angry that fellow eu members are not rushing to share this burden. the union's most powerful voices accept that italy has a point.

translation: we need to find a common eu policy. there are some countries that are particularly hit by immigration these days. like italy, greece and spain. this is exactly what the fish mongers in catania's market have been saying for some time, just slightly more bluntly. translation: there is no space here. migrants should be spread out across europe. 50 here, 50 there. that would be fine. by rejecting the aquarius, italy has unilaterally created its own de facto relocation scheme. spain will take this boat but who will take the next one? james reynolds, bbc news, sicily. that's a summary of the news.

newsday is coming up at midnight. now on bbc news, it's time for newsnight with kirsty wark. i think that grenfell tower should be demolished and they should make a memorial, it should not be sad. a year ago grenfell tower caught fire. for the community, creating a memorialfor the bereaved will be part of the healing process. we've been to new york, to speak to the families of 9/11. more brexit drama as snp mps stage a walk—out of prime minster‘s questions. i ordered the right honourable gentleman to withdraw immediately from the house for... order! for the remainder of this day's sitting. and pro—remain rebels insist theresa may has given them a veto on the final deal. i'll be asking the hardline brexiteer in chiefjacob rees—mogg if he's been outmanoeuvered. the battle for yemen escalates

as the key port of hudaydah comes under bombardment. with the supply of food, medicine and other essentials under threat, aid agencies warn ofa impending humanitarian catastrophe. we'll be asking the shadow foreign secretary how britain should respond. good evening. it was just a little more then two hours from now, a year ago, that the the grenfell tower fire began, not long after many of the almost 300 residents had gone to bed. in the coming hours, people's lives were shattered, their homes destroyed. the tally of 72 deaths was the worst in a residentialfire since the second world war, and the black, charred, husk of the tower is a daily reminder of the suffering. a series of events will mark the anniversary tomorrow, but former residents and local groups are also starting to turn their minds to what should happen to the site of the tower. i'm joined by our special correspondent, katie razzall.

you have followed this the whole year. i have and it is fair to say that in this week of all weeks the bereaved and survivors are not thinking first and foremost about what might happen to decide, the grief is still so raw, as it is a difficult week for everybody but i know those conversations have started and when this anniversary is over, there will be more consultations, a process will begin to see what they want. do they want a memorial park or garden where they can reflect on loved ones or more than that? 72 people died. each of those lives had an individual story and that came across clearly in the recent commemoration hearings at the enquiries. how do they tell the story of those lives? do they want something at the side that remembers every individual? is this is also a huge political story with huge ramifications for all sorts of things. if that aid narrative they want

told, some sort of museums if and when the power comes down? these are all things they have to think about and i have been investigating this and looking into it is with a film—maker. you see the fire... people were screaming from the top of the roof. you see the fire... people were screaming from the top of the roof. people shouting "help". people need help and you cannot help. i've got it in my bedroom, i've got in my living room, i've got it in the music room, i've got it in the garden. the moment we walk outside our front door, we face the tower.

people are hoping that they're going to demolish it, bring it down. a lot of people are affected by the presence of the tower. the sounds... the horror... the haunting images. for a year, grenfell tower has loomed over this community. a blackened husk, later clothed in white. amidst the raw grief and the ongoing criminal investigation and inquiry, there's been another question — what will happen to the site, long—term? how might the deaths of 72 people be remembered? one of those keywords, if you like. so is it water, is it trees, is it birds? what are the kind of things we want?

the next station is latimer road. one idea that found favour for a while was to rename the local tube station grenfell. the government has promised the bereaved will be at the heart of deciding what happens at grenfell. that's people like adel chaoui who's leading those conversations. i lost four relatives in the tower. well, technically i lost three relatives in the tower, two young children, and eight—year—old and a five—year—old were rescued, and the eight—year old died 36 hours later. so there's a six—year—old, and i need to make sure that she's not, she's got somewhere to go to, where she can remember her parents, remember her siblings. what might she and other relatives eventually find there? the assumption is the tower will come down, and there's already been one specific suggestion for

the site, from an authority figure. i was quite fortunate that my family, i say fortunate, but i was quite fortunate in that my family were whole and we were able to have burials quite rapidly, but other families have only had fragments back, and everything else is toxic ash. so the coroner said quite early on that for her, an idea would be that for any remains, mostly ash, that they can't identify through any modern dna technology, that it would be an idea for us to somehow inter them on the site. and i think a lot of families who are going through this, who have only had fragments back, find the idea quite reassuring. achieving a fitting memorial in a place associated with such pain

could take a long time. for many the grenfell disaster brought to mind 9/11 in new york. those unforgettable images of the twin towers before they fell and the awful fate of those inside them. while no two catastrophes are the same, in both places people died in a horrific and very public way. and both sites became, for many of the bereaved, a graveyard for their loved ones. they've rebuilt on ground zero, with a waterfall memorial in the footprints of the two world trade center towers and a 9/11 museum below ground. only two months after 9/11, official conversations were already being held about what kind of memorial could be created here. that's not to say things ran swiftly

or smoothly as a result and what unfolded in the years after could offer lessons as the grenfell community starts to think about how to memorialise its dead. well, this is kind of my original model. back in 2003, daniel libeskind was chosen as the master planner for the 16 acres destroyed by the terror attack. i didn'tjust start with a design, i talked to the families of the victims. i didn'tjust go and start drawing things. i got to know them. i got to know their stories. the design is being able to articulate feelings, emotions, since it's not reallyjust about concrete and earth and names carved into the site. it's really how to overcome these events in some positive way. below ground, in a part of the vast museum, is a room that commemorates those who died with images and their stories. from the very beginning,

even when there was so much destruction at the site, i found great solace being in this area, because it was where my son brad, who was 24 at the time, died that day. it was a very comforting place to be. it's in the middle of manhattan, so we wanted water to drown out the sound of the city. we wanted the footprints of the building to be preserved. we felt that they had historical significance, and we wanted, i'd say most families wanted the unidentified remains, there were still thousands, to be here at the memorial. mary was heavily involved in the memorialisation project from soon after the attacks. i think our families, the 9/11 families that

were involved, really contributed to making the museum what it is today. the culmination of years of work, this high—profile memorial is an obvious place to turn to for advice. anthony gardner's brother died in 9/11. he now works for the museum. representatives from the central government in the uk, specifically from the grenfell tower victims unit, had reached out back last fall, just seeking guidance from us on how to memorialise. what did our memorial process look like? because it was a long process, it was emotional, it was painful. but at the end it was inclusive and we were able to find common ground. so we always try to impart those lessons, to instil those communities with a sense of hope. but not everyone is happy with what they've come up with at ground zero. my son had graduated from the fire academy only six

weeks before 9/11. firefighter christian regenhard has an additional commemoration at this new york church. my son is one of 1100 people who remain missing at the world trade center. his mother is scathing of the official memorial and museum. oh, i never go there. i don't see what is comforting to look at two huge pools of water and to have all these names with no identification. you know, no age, nothing. sally would have preferred more details about the lives of those who died to be above ground. instead of in the museum down below, which charges entry to all except close family. pictures, likenesses, some kind of image engraved on a stone, that is so meaningful. we had nothing of that. an advocate for some firefighter families also finds the memorial inappropriate.

they consciously made a decision to make this an urban park, to see people taking selfies and smiling and running around, kids screaming, people eating their lunch. i mean, this is not any amount of reverence and respect for what happened there that day. that depends on who you are and a lesson from here is it is hard to strike the right note for everybody. people grieve differently, and i'll use my own family as an example. i love being here at the memorial, and, you know, i've spent a lot of time down here over the years with other family members advocating for what we thought was an appropriate memorial. my husband would come from time to time. my children, who are adults now, they have never been. they will come to a memorial event and the memorial plaza, but they haven't yet come into the memorial. you know, it has to be here. because at some point, they may want to visit. this is not a model to follow

for grenfell, in terms of the memorialisation process. make this a reverential spot, make this a place where people come to remember the people that were killed there, not to come and eat their lunch but to come and think about the folks that died in that building, and also maybe even the larger issues of, how did we fail? how did government fail? how did the building designers fail, how did the architects fail? how did these things fail to create this situation, and be contemplative in that respect, because that is something i think is important as well, just as important a memorial in my mind is making improvements for the future. this memorial and its museum is in a sense very american, a bold, impressive, expensive reaction to an attack on the country itself. with so many families affected as well as residents,

business people and the like, the finished site was probably never going to take everybody with it. london feels different. a year on from the fire, grenfell is a tight community and what happened here is so shaming it appears the authorities intend to do the right thing. there are already signs that when it comes to grenfell, the process of memorialisation will be much more straightforward. in march, the government and the local council formally agreed to put the grenfell community at the heart of any decision over what happens to the site. they signed up to a set of written principles, which said the future of the area will be decided by the bereaved, survivors and local residents. with the bereaved having a power of veto over all decisions. adel was involved in the negotiations. for any bereaved, the idea that

that becomes anything other than a memorial garden is hurtful. it's... it's where our loved ones died. it's where people will be buried, effectively. i think it was just important that we put that anxiety to bed, so we pressed for a formal document. do you now feel reassured they won't rebuild on it? yes. a definite commitment? ifeel we will decide happens to the site top i once the anniversary is over, the consultation begins. there is much to reflect on. whether to use the cavity left when the tower is taken down, how to fund any plans and what kind of memorial want. what i'm trying to achieve is a very blank piece of paper that enables us, gives us the power to decide what that is, without imposing my ideas for the tower. i think that is important because it is not my decision to make, it is for the bereaved, the survivors and for the local community to make that decision. it is not my decision to make.

a memorial is important, absolutely. it is part of our recovery process. my god, i'm already feeling a little bit sick! on a street not far from the tower, and nhs mental health team that deals with people affected by grenfell is offering passers—by something a little different. this year has seen more than 2000 people, a quarter of them children, referred for grenfell related talking therapy. today is about finding others. i'm going to crash. oh my god! we've been using vr to engage people in the community. when you give somebody the opportunity to go on a roller—coaster or to put a wing suit on and jump off a cliff, or even to do some kind of 3—d art, when they've used it, when they take the headset off, they're really

receptive to a conversation with you. one of my closest friends, his auntie and uncle lived in grenfell. he has been really affected since it happened. this nhs team has been working closely with grenfell united, to use this technology for another purpose as well. what we'd really like to do is explore the use of creating a memorial wall in virtual reality, so that both children and adults can explore how they would create a memorial before it's actually created. so we've been having these conversations for quite some time now about doing it. obviously, with the anniversary coming up, that is what we are concentrating on. but afterwards, a lot of that concentrating on one specific things goes away and we need something in the community, something to look forward to be involved in, so the focus for the community still remains in the tower and around the memorial. i could spend hours and doing this.

it makes me happy and it makes me learn more, to be better at school. it's a thought vital by those involved that children helped devise the memorial. grenfell‘s impact on their lives will endure for many decades. they've all been through this traumatic event and we have to make sure that all the young people who come here can manage and deal with that throughout their lives. on the day of the fire, oxford gardens primary school was covered in ash. and much loved pupil and former pupil both died in grenfell. others in the school lost relatives and friends. they are making hearts from willow to commemorate what happened a year ago. i think that it would be really important for the children to be involved in those discussions about what will happen to this site. throughout this year, they've given us enormous hope, and i've looked to them for answers and they have so much creativity. whatever is there will be part of their lives, always, as it should be, so i think it's very important that they do have a voice. i think that grenfell tower should be demolished and make a memorial.

not sad. what kind of memorial? meeting place where people can communicate. not a sad one. with flowers everywhere. and then people could, like, get together and just talk about their feelings and maybe there could be like a bench. most benches... they have those things on the side. yeah. rest in peace or something. you will be remembered... you said some of the people were talking about, they want it to be a place of happiness as well as sadness, i'm quite hopeful it's much, much more a place of happiness, of remembrance and positivity than it is a place of sadness. i don't think we are going to have problems with getting to a position where we are happy with what gets proposed. at the school, the hearts have been decorated green, the colour that has come to represent grenfell. they are going up in the playground, a sign,

they hope, of the love and unity that community has shed through this difficult year. the pain won't end with the anniversary‘s passing but the strength here endures. katie razzall and filmmaker stuart denman. the walk—out of scottish national party mps from today's prime minister's questions after the expulsion of their parliamentary leader by the speaker may have been prearranged but it doesn't alter the fact that the deliberations over brexit are becoming more fraught, and, as far as the scottish government is concerned, an existential threat to devolution. simply put, the scottish government believes that theresa may is intent on keeping powers repatriated after brexit to westminster, including over agriculture and fisheries, rather than devolving them to the scottish parliament. our political editor, nick watt, is here. it was a bit of drama in this slightly endless conversation about brexit but there was a serious point here? underlying this row is this brexit legislation seems to be heading to the statute book without the consent of the scottish parliament.

the reason holyrood has withheld that is because they fear this so—called power grab, which is that london is taking back some but not all the powers that are currently held brussels, that are in devolved areas. the uk government says they have to do it, because in those rather limited areas, they are related to the functioning of the uk single market. so as you are saying, ian blackford, the snp leader at westminster decided to take a stand in his particular reason was there were only around 11 minutes allowed on tuesday's debate to discuss those areas and devolved areas and they say that really does show westminster is very high—handed towards holyrood. so today the government got through these votes but it did mask a deeper problem? that is right.

this bill goes back to the house of lords with no government defeats and crucially the government won a vote on whether the uk should go into the europe economic area and that was voted down. but interestingly, 1a conservative mps either abstained or voted in favour of that. now, 1a is the magic number. if you have 1a tory rebels and you have the labour front bench voting for something, then the government could be defeated. but, jeremy corbyn ordered his troops to abstain on this one because he doesn't believe that we should be in the eea but there will be votes on our next month and i spoke to one ally ofjeremy corbyn this evening who said we have got to get him to change his mind, although this person said they are not holding their breath. i have emily thornberry later and i will probably

put that straight to her. where are we on the role of parliament in these negotiations? oliver letwin had been summoned and he has been trying to find common ground beef between dominic grieve, the remainer in chief who wants to give parliament are really decisive role in those sort of final hours, final months of their brexit negotiations between him and the prime minister. who says i hear what you're saying that we, have parliament directing the government. both sides are saying then maybe some common ground like that... i spoke to two cabinets leaders and they said to me, we're just trying to find if dominic grieve has that many supporters, perhaps we will peel off some of those supporters. one said to be, the government can leap of. thank you, nick. i'm joined now by the conservative mp jacob rees—mogg. good evening to you. good evening. what is it all about? i think the amendment passed in the lords that requires meaningful vote actually

doesn't get them anywhere because the basic constitutional position is that the government negotiates treaties but can only do so if it maintains the confidence of the of the house of commons and that the result of any agreement will have to be brought into law, which means that has to pass through the house of commons. so without any of this, the house of commons always has the fate of the government of the day on its hands. that is routine constitutional... only through the vote of no—confidence, so you're not bothered about any concessions given to these remain as? the issue with these concessions as they make no deal more likely because they would gum up the process of negotiation. can you imagine that the government goes off to brussels answers, we can only discuss these three things because these are the only ones that have been covered by house of commons resolution? the eu says no. it goes back to the commons, a week passes, another resolution is passed, means nothing.

let's be quite clear, you think it is more likely that there will be no deal but actually, you are actually not that bothered about no deal? no, i want a deal, i think it's in our interest but i'm not frightened of no deal. i think it is very important in no negotiation that your starting point should be, we want a deal but we are happy not to have a deal in... if the deal is not good enough. your position still is, no deal is better than a bad deal? absolutely. let's move forward clearly on this, if the deal theresa may negotiates is a bad deal, would you just have to live with it? i think no deal is better than a bad steel. would you live with it? of course i wouldn't support a bad deal. in what way, this is the key point, it's all about i wouldn't support a bad deal, how would you not support a bad deal,

what would you actually do? that is the key. a bad deal or good deal requires legislation and mps vote on legislation. so any deal the prime minister gets, this is what makes the hailsham amendment only a risk of no deal, it doesn't change or enhance the constitutional position, any deal requires legislation and any mp who doesn't like the deal, dominic grieve on its idle me on my side, can vote against the legislation. that is the normal constitutional procedure. normal constitutional procedure would be is a deal comes, you think it is not up to parliament to negotiate the deal but up to theresa may. she brings back a deal that you don't think it's a good deal and in order to kill that deal, the only thing open to you, if i am right, is a vote of no—confidence in the prime minister? that is not right, you vote to amend the legislation implementing the deal. let me give you a specific example. i am not clear, you don't believe it parliament that negotiates this deal

but the prime minister but on the other hand you are saying the same with dominic grieve, saying you would amend the legislation but you don't believe the pa rliamentarian‘s job is to do that? not this legislation, the implementing legislation. how treaties were, the government signed the treaty and then the effect on domestic law have to be brought into law by an act of parliament. let me give you a specific example. if the government comes back in october and says we are giving £39 billion to the european union, but we haven't got any promises and trade other than good faith, i think it is very unlikely people would vote on that. you would vote against it? i would not support that. vote against it? vote against it. you can look at specific examples where the legislation would be impossible to get through. that is your view, the same as dominic grieve has his view, we are in the same position but from different wings of the brexit vote. you talked about this in the times.

simply put, would you ever bring a vote of no—confidence against theresa may? i won't support a vote of no—confidence against theresa may. and you wouldn't bring it yourself? of course not. i support the government and am expecting to support the deal because the great thing about the government is as an excellent chief whip who can count and he knows perfectly well he cannot pass on to domestic legislation of rotten deal. no circumstances, even if it was a rotten deal and somehow gets passed, we talked about the tightness of the figures. let's be clear, there is no way you take part in any activity to bring theresa may down? the fixed parliament act shows how a vote of no—confidence works. i will not support any vote of no—confidence in the prime minister. i have confidence in her and support her and expect her to get an excellent deal. and if she doesn't? i will support her but there will be legislation which will be

open for debate. dominic grieve and i will both be debating it. thank you, that's very good. it is the day that millions of yemenis prayed would not come. eight million of them are already at risk of starvation in the country which has been ripped apart by war for the past three years, and last night pro—government forces aided by the saudi—led coalition began a bombardment from air and sea of the coastal city of hudayah where most of the aid arrives for people in the rebel held areas. according to the coalition, the strikes were launched after the iranian—backed houthi rebels ignored a deadline to withdraw. the legitimate yemeni government was forced into exile by the houthis who are in control of the north west of the country, so what chance is there of the return of the saudi backed government? nawal al—maghafi has regularly reported from yemen on the conflict for the bbc. here is her report.

houthi rebels watching and waiting, ready for the fight. they know how important this port is to yemen and perhaps the rebel group's grip on this fractured country. today, a saudi led coalition geared up for an assault on hudaydah, to the west of the country. the port is a vital harbour in rebel territory. it is the main artery bringing in food, fuel and aid to the country and a lucrative financial hub for the rebels. it is also where some believe iranian weapons are smuggled into the country. but for the people, things are desperate. two years ago i met with a doctor who showed me people starving in hudaydah. today she told me she fears things are going to get worse. we are suffering from the starvation and poverty and lack of medical supply. and now they inform us it will become worse and i think in hudaydah we are waiting to die.

so who are the houthis and how are they able to consolidate so much power? the houthis are a theological movement, which is an insurgency, simply an insurgency that was able to take control over sa na'a in september 2014. and since then it has grown up because they used a specific political vacuum in the country to run a parallel military structure in the country. now the houthis are in control of the most populated parts of the country. the president of yemen, abdrabbuh mansur hadi, fled to neighbouring saudi arabia. in march 2015, a ten—nation coalition led by saudi arabia and backed by the us and uk

started bombing yemen. and as people were running out of the windows... since then, i have witnessed some of the horrors of the war. the fighting, the bombing, and then the starvation. the risk is that this new offensive will block the port and much—needed supplies will not make it in. the un describes yemen as having the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. you have something like 22.2 million people out of a population of 27.4 million people in need of some sort of humanitarian assistance and the un reckons around 8 million people who are living hand to mouth, who are on the verge of starvation. so if you have a really big shock to the system, those 8 million people, they are worried they could be pushed over the edge into real starvation. we could see a real famine—like

condition in some parts of the country. the offensive presents a problem for the british government. they could hold some responsibility if things go badly wrong. whatever unfolds in the next few days and weeks on the ground, the mod will be keeping a very close eye. the uk government may not be a part of the coalition but it is one of its main supporters. they provide training, they have personnel in the command and control centre in riyadh, and they are also one of the main suppliers of the billions of pounds of advanced weapons that have devastated yemen. the british government has been cagey about this attack. they have urged restraint. but some conservative mps support the offensive. it is absolutely vital that this coalition, unanimously supported by the un security council, is able to effect the relief of suffering in the yemen. it is the houthis and their forces who are in illegal rebellion against the former established order in the yemen and we should not forget that.

the saudi coalition have an incredibly difficult political and military task to take control of the yemen for the people of the yemen and on behalf of the international community. the coalition believe the hudaydah offensive can be completed quickly and effectively but that is what they said when they began this war, which is now in its fourth year. if this offensive is prolonged, it could turn what is already a humanitarian disaster into a catastrophe. i'm joined now by the shadow foreign secretary, emily thornberry. what is your initial reaction to what is going on there? it is a disaster and it has been going on for years. there is no military solution to this, only a political solution. we have an important role in this. these are our bombs that are being used by the saudi arabians.

what is happening is the port where 80% of the food comes in has been closed by the saudis in the last couple of days and people are going to staff. they are our allies and we have a role in saying no, enough, stop this. and furthermore we hold the pen in the security council, it is our response ability to put a peace proposal on the table and we have not been doing that and we should have done it two years ago. there was a draft and it got pulled. we are simply not stepping up in the way we should. the saudis and the coalition are saying they have exhausted all political pressure and negotiations and the houthis would move. that is not true, martin griffiths who is the un special representative, is who is very well thought, i have spoken to about holding in high esteem and he was good but board next week is blueprint before the security council and he has said himself that this attack on this port, with a quarter of a million people in it, is effectively the end

to any peace process. would a labour government stop all arms sales to saudi? it is our policy to stop arms sales to saudi arabia, we have had bad policy for the last three years and the reason is because we believe there has to be an investigation into the way in which the arms have been used —— that policy. even though that industry, we're the third biggest exporters of defence, a massive income to the uk and we know the russians would supply the same weapons question what i would say that all people in the arms industry i have spoken to want to do it in accordance with the law and it is my view... theresa may said it is in accordance with the law and she also has it in the past that you are not against arms sales if they are used for legitimate purposes. and using them in a densely populated area like this, closing down a port like this come on the face of it looks like war crimes. it looks of international law.

there has been a court case, it is this a bit to appeal and it will be interesting to see what a court would say now. in the past, whenever they have bombed civilians were getting married orfunerals, they say it is a mistake. this is not a mistake, it is a deliberate policy to engage in this port where there are so many civilians and where, on the face of it, there will be the reckless use of force where civilians will be killed. they have told the civilians to get out of the weight but how can they do that? let me turn to brexit, i am sure you heard us talking earlier. tonight one shadow minister and four ministerial aide resigned over brexit, because of the eea vote. you artist as split as the tories over brexit? you are as split as the tories over brexit? we're not. we want to be in a customs union and negotiate a free trade agreement with europe.

we want to putjobs at the front and centre. the disagreements, and there are disagreements, is how to go about doing that. keir starmer says you are hopelessly split. you must agree with him? the disagreement is what the vehicle is to get there and as we get closer to running out of time, people are saying, let's go into the eea because it is a safe haven. but on the figures, it is how you get to where you want to go. we talked about the magic figure of 14, 14 tory rebels, three voting against, 11 abstaining. if we all voted the same way, we would be in the eea. a lot of people thinking that if that is the measure it takes for you to get the position you want to, but the problem is that jeremy corbyn does not want that. the problem is that a large number of my colleagues believe the eea,

and they are right, would not allow us to change the rules in relation to immigration because that is one of the four pillars and they would vote for that. actually what we wanted to do is said we wanted a british style agreement with the european union, we want to be in a customs union, we need to change the rules on immigration. it is simple maths. that is the key figure, if you could get there, surely it does not matter, the end justifies the means. get there is that not what you want? if we had another 50 mps we would be in government and we could negotiate on the basis i have put it —— 15 mp5. we would not even be in this situation where the government can't even agree what they want to negotiate on. keir starmer says you cannot agree either. it is just the mechanism and in the envy of the opposition. thank you very much. the front pages tomorrow morning. the daily telegraph,

doors opened to thousands more skilled migrants. remembering grenfell one year on. the times has labour suffers a mass revolt. 90 mp5 90 mps defied karratha non—brexit. —— carbon non—brexit. —— defy —— on brexit. and web giants fuelling child mental health crisis. dominic grieve on the front page of the daily mail. according to them, dominic grieve insists he is not out to destroy brexit and suggest he was in the same meeting as alistair campbell. that would be a great meeting of minds! in the guardian, new fissure with the eu as britain blocked from security project. and finding hope after grenfell. the daily mirror has a different story, greed and hypocrisy, the pm's husband's firm invests in medical cannabis producer. hello, everyone. glad you could join us hello, everyone. glad you could join us from singapore. i am a rico hizon. two days on from the

singapore summit and the us secretary of state is any region at making some big claims. mike pompeo says the us hopes to see major north korean disarmament by the end of 2020. he is in south korea discussing the outcome of the summit and travels to beijing later. he admits there is still a great deal of work to do with north korea. saudi backed forces in yemen attack the main port. aid agencies are warning of a humanitarian disaster, because crucial supplies won't get through. a new study says antarctica lost 3 trillion tons of light because of global warming in the