i'm babita sharma. our top story. turkey's president erdogan says he and his party have won landmark presidential and parliamentary elections. there's been jubilation among mr erdogan‘s supporters. as president, he would take on sweeping new powers. but the opposition says the outcome is still not clear. the german chancellor says eu leaders have agreed that countries on the front line of europe's migrant crisis cannot be left alone to carry the burden. the italian prime minister said he felt the debate went italy's way. and this video is trending on bbc.com. as south korea moves closer to banning dog meat, diners have tucked into bowls of stewed canine in south—western china as part of the yulin dog meat festival. around 10—15,000 dogs are estimated to be killed each year. that's all from me now. stay with bbc world news. now on bbc news it's time for hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk, i'm sarah

montague. senatorjeff flake is one of president trump's harshest critics. he thinks the president is a danger to america and the republican party and he has exhorted his fellow republicans to do something about him but any republican who speaks out against president trump suffers in the polls. it is why senator blake won't be standing for election again. he knows he won't win. so why does he think republicans need to reclaim their party from the rhone president? senatorjeff flake,

senator jeff flake, welcome senatorjeff flake, welcome to hardtalk. thank you for having me on. why do you say president trump is dangerous? what i said is, he's the type of, the type of politics he practices is a danger to democracy. that type of politics that is crude and crass and really doesn't recognise our allies and expresses a fondness for authoritarians and dictators, that our pens arrangements that we have had a hand in creating as a rules —based international order that has made the world prosperous and generally free for 70 years now. that is risked by an american president that behaves the way he has. let's take a look at how he's behaved over one particular issue, immigration most

recently, where we have seen that in a way, some think you've charged, the checks and balances are working but arguably they are working, he has listened and softened a policy thatis has listened and softened a policy that is popular with those who voted him in. certainly, he came in, the first day of his campaign he talked about this danger from the south, talking about mexican rapists, talked about later a judge who had mexican heritage who couldn'tjudge really or fairly. that was a dog whistle to those, the base are part of our politics. and i think he went too far with this last policy of trying to deter immigration by splitting up families. gratefully, it was too far. but what he was doing there in separating children from their parents, and win over about six weeks there were about 2300 children separated, he was enforcing a law that already existed. his argument is, people we re existed. his argument is, people

were arriving, crossing the border illegally. they could have gone to entry points and claimed asylum but they tried to do it illegally and if you enforce the law, that means you separate a child because you are not going to prosecute. there is no doubt we need to change the laws. it's inconsistent, the laws we have on the books, particularly the florez settlement which says you can't hold children and because you can't hold children and because you can't hold children away from their pa rents. can't hold children away from their parents. ultimately you have a policy called catch and release. you can call it capture and release, catch and release, whatever the case, it doesn't deter and encourages people to come with children. congress does need to change the laws but in the meantime, we need to understand that the worst thing you can do is separate families the way the administration was. prioradministrations families the way the administration was. prior administrations faced with the same dilemma handled that commitment to it —— differently. with the same dilemma handled that

commitment to it -- differently. his argument is they were encouraging the problem, there were these loopholes. in the words of the department of homeland secretary kirstjen nielsen, the voices of those criticising the current laws are those who created the crisis at his policies are perpetuated. are those who created the crisis at his policies are perpetuatedm are those who created the crisis at his policies are perpetuated. is she right? there are a lot of things that drive immigration across the border. we are at fairly low levels historically. it is spiked up a bit this year that it has more to do with economic trends and what is happening in central and south america. the department of homeland security says the number of families entering illegally is up a35%. security says the number of families entering illegally is up 435%. that is entering illegally is up 43596. that is over a pretty low base over a short period of time. if you look at overall yearly trends, we are down significantly from a couple of years ago. then we had a spike in unaccompanied minors who came to the border absent their parents and we had to deal with them so we had to

stand up facilities and whatnot and it never is good but i can't think of anything worse than what we went through the past couple of weeks. president trump's argument, and he has adapted the policy, is that it wasn't working and it wasn't being addressed. and actually, he's been calling on legislators to do something about the loopholes. do you agree with him? i agree congress needs to fix it —— fix it but he lays the blame squarely at the democrats. i was part of the so—called gang of eight and have beenin so—called gang of eight and have been in congress 18 years and worked ona number of been in congress 18 years and worked on a number of proposals during that 18 years, not all on a bipartisan basis. there are democrats who want to fix it and not all democrats. very few democrats want open borders. we'll want to fix it. it's been very polarising and difficult. the president doesn't make it easier

by demonising one side and it makes it difficult for republicans to partner with the democrats. certainly the democrats to partner with republicans. we are in a situation where he is saying and its press secretary is saying, funding a border wall, tightening immigration laws, they should all be fulfilled as part of any legislation. is that right? i would like and have worked on compared to perform. what we passed in 2013, the gang of eight bill, was comprehensive and provided significant resources for the border and interior enforcement work programmes, some mechanism to deal with those here illegally. there is almost an encouragement to bring your children because you will get in that way. a lot of that would have been dealt with in the legislation. we also dealt with the situations in el salvador, honduras and guatemala, the so—called triangle. where we appropriated

money to help deal with those asylum cases at us consulates there so they don't make the trip. given where we are now and republicans are not agreeing, is it right, is president trump writes that the answer to this for the united states is what he is saying, to fund the building of a wall. if you build a wall, in terms of asylu m wall. if you build a wall, in terms of asylum cases, which a lot of these are, they will simply come to these are, they will simply come to the points of entry into the border. so the wall is not a berlin wall typeable. gratefully. would you vote in favour of putting up the money to build a wall? it depends on what you mean. the president has changed his own definition. in some places, we need a more physical structure and in some places, but to reign as such. i am from arizona and i've been on the border a lot. some places you don't need a barrier at

all because it's so remote to this notion of a 2500 mile wall is ludicrous and the president recognises that as does the department. we need more recent losses for the border. i point out the bill i mentioned, 2013, designated between manpower, personnel, technology, border infrastructure was about $41 billion. significantly more than the president was talking about. it didn't envision a 2500 mile structure that the president kind of puts out there and a lot of people envision as something very different from what it is. do you think as a result of this process and perhaps he always intended it, that is more likely to get he wanted? you know, it depends on to be able to say, i got a wall. initially the mexicans we re got a wall. initially the mexicans were going to paper it. he still says that. nobody believes it. to be able to say, i got a wall. sure, he wa nts to able to say, i got a wall. sure, he wants to do that. we do need more

infrastructure. but far more important is what you do in terms of the drivers of immigration. part of the drivers of immigration. part of the reason we have far less immigration across the border than we did ten years ago or so is because of nafta. we have helped the economy of mexico so your mexicans, net migration south of mexican citizens, so there are other things that need to be done as well. we are working with these northern triangle countries to improve their systems of justice and countries to improve their systems ofjustice and if we can continue to do that, we can relieve some of the pressures . do that, we can relieve some of the pressures. you have been, as i say, one of president trump's harshest critics within his own party but you've also said, i'm not going to stand for election again. it is so important to you, why not? there is no place in this party for a

republican like me. it used to be that if you polled in arizona, one of the most important issues to you, the economy orjobs, sometimes immigration. now the most important issueif immigration. now the most important issue if you polled those who vote ina issue if you polled those who vote in a republican primary is, are you with the president? that has become the litmus test. are you with the president? 0n the litmus test. are you with the president? on some things but not a number of things. i could not continue to speak out as i am and win the republican primary, it is not possible. when president trump heard what you done, he tweeted, the reason you and senator bob corker dropped out, they have zero chance of being elected. they now act so hurt and wounded. you know, i never had the choice, frankly. i could never have supported this president. initially, long before he was a candidate, when he espoused he is

birther theory. that president 0bama was not american. that was too much for me. and then the comments on mexican rapists and referring to my colleaguejohn mccain, mexican rapists and referring to my colleague john mccain, somebody mexican rapists and referring to my colleaguejohn mccain, somebody who could not be honoured because he had been captured. it was never on the cards for me to support him. i had hoped that after the election, people would, the electorate in arizona and elsewhere would say, hey, we need people who will provide a check on the president. and we'll both be him when they think is right and vote against him when they think is wrong. right now, we don't have that in the party. 90% of the republican party is right there with the president. this is the party of the president. this is the party of the president. this is the party of the president right now. i could out, certainly, gone along with that and made myself 0k out, certainly, gone along with that and made myself ok with the president's policies and his behaviour. but i couldn't have. you

said it's about his policies and behaviour. it does sound it's ok that decorum. decorum certainly. what now has become normal, these tweets, these insults. this degradation of the political culture is awful. but you are offended. when it comes to what is actually doing. there are people who heard the speech and thought you were going to stand up against him. within hours, you are voting on a policy in line with him which you have done more than 80% of the time. with him which you have done more than 8096 of the time. keep in mind, i'm a conservative. i believed we had to have corporate tax cuts. i would have done it differently but we needed to lower the corporate rate. we simply aren't competitive. voting to repeal 0bamaca re,

rate. we simply aren't competitive. voting to repeal 0bamacare, i voted 40 times before he came along. you don't object to what he is doing, the way he is doing it. trade policy, no opposite —— no opportunity to push back on the president's trade policy. a huge mistake to exit the trans—pacific partnership and a worse mistake it would pull out of nafta, the steel and aluminium tariffs are detrimental to the economy as well as our relationship with our allies. the president's muslim band was patently unconstitutional and on wires and it morphed into something which is probably constitutional but still unwise. the policies of the president on picking winners and losers in the economy right now, saying the department of energy, buying power from coal saying the department of energy, buying powerfrom coal plants saying the department of energy, buying power from coal plants to keep them alive, regardless of whether they are economically viable or not. those on the policies i support. you also said when you are

criticising him, the most vexing untreatable, the supposed hoax at the heart of the russia investigation. do you think that president trump is only in power because russia influence the election? no, i don't. no, idon't. i no, i don't. i do think the russians try to influence the election, they did intervene, not at the teahouse, but certainly at the benefit of donald trump. we don't know if that was disposed of or not, if that effected the election. i accept that donald trump is the president, he was duly elected, we will never know how much influence that had, but i am troubled that he simply won't let that investigation take its course. it ought to. i have a lot of faith in robert miller. the investigation is going on. president hasn't done anything to stop it. right, well, he

has tried to undermine it. i hope he let it take its course, that he doesn't fire robert mueller or rosenstein. but it is not healthy, it is not right to denigrate and undermine and institutions like the fbi, the department ofjustice and the free press. this is a real problem i have as well, is that calling fake news real and real use fa ke calling fake news real and real use fake and referring to the press as the enemy of the people, he should know that that phrase does not have a noble pedigree and those things are dangerous, particularly when you have journalists around the world being detained and in some cases, killed, certainly detained in record numbers, in some cases, on fake or false use charges that echo the language that he uses. that is very detrimental. when you accused him

and you picked up accusing him of using stalinist language, the national committee chairwoman tweeted that you have borne too far, comparing the leader of the free world to murderous dictators is absurd. certainly i don't compare him to starland. i say that certainly the president of the united states should know better than to use a phrase that were similarto than to use a phrase that were similar to starland. you criticise the president and yet you are talking about a man that is overseeing an incredibly strong economy, where unemployment is at its lowest in 18 years, gdp revisions keep going up, it is growing strongly. he, while there are people in the united states who are people in the united states who are strongly opposed to him, amongst the republican base he gets ratings of 85% or even more. the argument is that he is doing the right thing and

you shouldn't even be there. you have lost. keep in mind, these things that i think have been main drivers of a better economy have been pushed by congress for a long time, in particular, regulartory reform. we use something called the congressional review act, to fill out a lot and were enacted by the previous administration. president has done a lot of good things on recommendation of them. we were overburdened on the regular tory state that has been a good thing for the economy, even better than the tax cuts. they were important as well, particularly for corporate. that has laid the groundwork for a good economy. i am afraid that in the long—term, trade wars will nix it all. we don't win trade wars. try as we might, we haven't been able to move the president on that notion that there are, that trade is

somehow a zero—sum game. is that there are, that trade is somehow a zero—sum game. is somebody is doing well, somebody must be losing. president trump has imposed ta riffs losing. president trump has imposed tariffs on steel and aluminium and there are retaliatory tariffs from there are retaliatory tariffs from the eu being put in place, do you see it as inevitable that there will bea see it as inevitable that there will be a trade war? yes. i do know how you can impose tariffs and stick to them like that. how will it play out? people say, ultimately, he is saying this is a bad dealfor america. he is in it to get a better dealfor americans. america. he is in it to get a better deal for americans. that's right. there were parts of nafta needed to be changed, what of those we going to be revised in the tpp. but what we say, those of us who believe in free trade, that we have rules —based international order that we we re —based international order that we were the main architect of and that if we have is you —— issues with

china, trade partners and even allies, use that structure that you have set up, not simply go around it and impose tariffs. what happens is that there is retaliation, certainly there is going to be all already has been, from the european union, canada and mexico. and the response is then to ratchet up yet again. no one wins trade wars. but you recognise even it, don't you? for a time. for a time. recognise even it, don't you? for a time. fora time. i do recognise even it, don't you? for a time. for a time. i do think that we will get through this, we have two. populism is core populism for a reason, it is popular. you can win elections now and then, but you cannot govern with it. anger and resentment is not a governing policy and it only goes close —— it only goes so far and there are pendulum swings in american politics. i do think that this is his party right

now, it is, no doubt. you cannot win a republican primary around the country if you are a highly critical of the president of that behaviour or his politics, but that is not a lwa ys or his politics, but that is not always the case. how long? you have said and you wrote a book, he said these are the spasms of a dying party. is a republic —— the republican party dying? if we continue on this course, yes. look at the democratic. women and young people have been walking away from the party for a while. they are in a dead sprint. hooking out there, republicans did the right thing after mitt romney's loss, saying it let's do this autopsy, let's see where we are. the conclusion was we got to appeal to a broader base. now, a couple of months later, we chased a popular. you can win the election here or there but overall there are simply not enough... you

are not alone, there was a long—time strategist who was advising george dubya bush and john mccain, he has pronounced his name ship of the party because he says it is fully the party of donald trump, it is corrupt, indecent and immoral. the party of donald trump, it is corrupt, indecentand immoral. 0ur politics are broken. what is the option for someone like you, to stand for another party? our history has proven that two strong parties produces pretty good government, usually divided government is best, if you believe in fiscal conservatism, liberal government, economic freedom, you at least need a divided government periodically. soi a divided government periodically. so i hope the republican party can come back. you are not walking away from the party, renouncing your membership? you will stand in the party and do what? stand against him as president? i hope someone else does run in the republican primary.

would you? i have not ruled it out, but i would rather not. i have been in politics for 18 years, i would rather wait until this breaks. i could go give a speech in new hampshire because i think republicans are dying to know that there are real republicans and conservatives out there who are... so you will stand at some point to run for president? i am not saying that. you are not not saying that, that. you are not not saying that, thatis that. you are not not saying that, that is what is so interesting.” that. you are not not saying that, that is what is so interesting. i do hope somebody goes out to remind republicans what republicans stand for and what conservatives stand for and they offer an optimistic vision of where we should go. you talk about the situation being a recipe for disaster and had used the word danger, the pendulum needs to swing back. how dangerous, or how

disastrous, good things get you for the pendulum swings back? well, if you sparked a full—scale trade war, then that effects the global economy. is not just then that effects the global economy. is notjust our economy, it is the world economy that is affected. if you continue to express fondness for sectarianism, then you give licence to governments that should have that licence or that credibility. so does have an effect. these things, on the trade issues, it has more than just an economic effect as well. pulling out of the tpp was disastrous because those countries, particularly in south east asia, would like to be a part of our trade, but will be sucked into china's vortex. for somebody who expresses, and i think rightly so, this opinion that it is china,

they are our competitor, we have certainly done everything that we shouldn't have done if we were to address the situation because we have made it far easier for china address the situation because we have made it far easierfor china to fill the trade vacuum and that has implications not just with fill the trade vacuum and that has implications notjust with the economy, but with geopolitics as well. senatorjeff flake, thank you for coming on hardtalk. thank you. hello. if you like your days sunny and your sunsets spectacular, this is the week for you. a summery week ahead. blue skies yesterday, almost uk wide. this is the scene in auburn. more of that to come this week. the sun will be a strong overhead, and for some of you, it will be pretty hot too. fluctuations in temperatures

through the week. but essentially, high pressure has built in. if your garden is looking parched at the moment, that high pressure system will be with us all week long. that means it will be dry. but also, the high pressure is starting with dry air in it. the air is circulating around it through the week and with dry ground underneath with blue skies overhead, that warms up steadily day by day. a change in wind direction means a slight change in temperature from one day to the next. single figures in the countryside and suburbs. warmth helped by the buildings in the city centres and sunshine overhead is quickly building on monday. cloud into the afternoon compared to sunday compared to the hebrides, the highlands, ireland. here, temperatures into the mid—teens, with blue skies still. sunny spells. blue skies elsewhere. temperatures, 26. perhaps the first 30 of the week in and around the london area. ending the day with lots of heat and a lovely sunset. still some cloud through the night. the heat is draining away

for tuesday morning. the air, dry. the night, fresh enough. temperatures in city centres in the teens for tuesday morning. back down into single figures in the countryside. the big difference with tuesday, a breeze in the west bringing more cloud to ireland and western scotland. the outside chance of a shower. very, very limited. the vast majority, dry. more cloud. to eastern coastal counties, the threat of sea fog patches. temperatures down on monday's values. wednesday, we will see the key to build yet again across western areas. temperatures could push 30 degrees. there will be more of an easterly breeze on wednesday towards the eastern coast. refreshingly cool, you have somewhere to escape the heat should you need it. by night, temperatures will hover around the teens. the air is dry and not desperately humid so we're not going to see the exceptionally high overnight temperatures. sheffield, a good example.

we continue with the heat through the day. lots of sunshine. maybe cooling off in scotland and northern ireland towards the weekend. bye for now. i'm rico hizon in singapore, the headlines: a closely fought contest but recep tayyip erdogan appears to have succeeded in his bid for another term as turkey's president. to all the people who have taken their duty to go to the ballot boxes, i would like to thank each and every one of those citizens who did their duties. victims of rape by the burmese military — the devastating legacy of sexual violence in the rohingya refugee camps of bangladesh. i'm babita sharma in london. president macron insists eu leaders have all ruled out forcing refugees back to where they may face persecution. and could japan face england in the knockout stages