hello. this is bbc news. the latest headlines: the electoral authorities in turkey say recep tayyip erdogan has won a second term as president. with nearly all the votes counted, mr erdogan has secured nearly 53%, avoiding the need for a second round run—off. his ak party was also set for an overall majority in parliament. the french president, emmanuel macron, has said an informal eu summit on migration rejected solutions that don't fit what he called european values. he said the 16 leaders had ruled out forcing refugees back to countries where they might face persecution. and england have reached the last 16 of the world cup after thrashing panama 6—1. captain harry kane scored a hat—trick. colombia also won on sunday. japan and senegal drew. the final group games start on monday. now on bbc news, it's time for dateline london. hello and a warm welcome

to dateline london, i'mjane hill. this week our major topic for discussion is migration, and how it's handled across europe and in the united states. plus, as major companies rang alarm bells in the uk, what are the prospects for striking a full deal with the eu before britain leaves? lots to discuss, and around the table with me this week, the sunday telegraph columnist janet daley, the portuguese writer and lecturer eunice goes, thomas kielinger, writer, author for many years,

correspondent for germany's die welt. and from bloomberg news, their senior writer stephanie baker. this weekend, a number of eu leaders are meeting to try to thrash out solutions to the migration crisis. at angela merkel‘s request, france's emmanuel macron, the leaders of bulgaria and austria, are among those exploring how to prevent migrants from moving around the bloc, after they've already claimed asylum in one of the mediterranean states of arrival. this gathering is in the run—up to the imminent full eu summit — one of their quarterly meetings — but it now also comes as immigration dominates us politics. president trump this week did a u—turn on his policy of separating children from their parents after they cross the us—mexico border, after domestic and international condemnation. well, let's start of course with the european situation. something we've been talking about for many years, sadly. chancellor merkel has been under

so much domestic pressure, how much is this mini summit all about that? about her own domestic travails? it is all about that. that is the origin of this meeting. she was under threat of losing her coalition because the interior minister was threatening to resign if he didn't get his way about stopping asylum seekers at the bavarian german border. he has a point because there is a sense of asylum tourism in europe going on. people who have been in one country, some say they should stay there and should make that their new home. but the open borders in europe allows them to continue to travel. the first registration country is meaningless, in a sense, because once you have some sort of registration, you can make your home somewhere else. there is that threat of constant migration, which is getting too much for individual countries to bear. secondly, of course, europe has to agree on a solution.

angela merkel is in a quandary because she was unilaterally responsible, three years ago, for opening germany's border. and now it's become such a problem, she can't continue unless europe comes to her aid to help her. she is going to them saying however this began, ineed... and i have to suspend my level of disbelief to think there will be any outcome of this meeting this weekend, because the italian prime minister already only came after the jettisoned, prefabricated final communique statement. like summit meetings often happen in the past, that have a communique already prepared. juncker had a statement already prepared. the italian prime minister said, "no, i will not come." angela merkel had to promise him

they would jettisoned this paper out. eastern countries also boycotted this meeting. they will ask us this issue at the opera summit next week. there is a degree of idea in merkel‘s mind that harmonisation has to mean everyone sharing the problem. they will say, it's not our problem. they are, in most cases, the first port of call. and that means that italy have to confront the main problem. and the interior minister already said we have 5 million poor italians, we can't cope with the impoverished masses of africa. and very high youth unemployment. yeah, and we have to come together, but it's easier said than done. we probably have to realy improve the regime outside libya's coastline and stop the people

smugglers to get... creating a fortress europe... we have to. which is appalling, absolutely appalling. considering the values that eu is supposed to stand for. one of the solutions they are considering is to create a new deal like they had with turkey and with libya. and we all know what goes on in those refugee camps, there are sexual abuses, rapes of minors, torture. all sorts of human rights violations. so essentially, what the eu is trying to do is to outsource its refugee problems to the developing world. countries that will not have the capacity to address the migration crisis. this is because there's been an inability of europe to address the inequities in the refugee system. as thomas said, refugees have to stay and register in the first port of call.

the first country where they arrive. that puts enormous pressure on those countries. absolutely. greece suffered tremendously in 2015 with the largest number of refugees coming from syria. now it italy, getting around 70% of all the migrants in europe. and italy turned back a ship this week. the eastern european countries refuse any kind of burden sharing. we also have angela merkel, many other prime ministers in europe who pander to their right—wing parties and far right parties. that is getting to the heart of it. above the mechanics of the problem, this is the essential crisis with the eu. on an idealistic level,

they wanted to get rid of nationalistic governments which could conceivably be seized by populist mobs, that was, european countries have this rather terrible history of electing the wrong people — hitler, mussolini. the idea of this benign oligarchy to be established in brussels was that the accountable, democratic national governments would lose a great deal of their powerand self—determination. this attempt to make a homogenous entity out of the eu is a smashing. trying to impose a universal fiscal system on europe, it might have been other things. democratic accountability, the basic principle of 18th—century modern democracy, which is that the legitimacy of the law derives from the consent of the people, that had to go out the window because the people were not reliable. now we're coming to the crunch,

now the people have become so angry about their concerns and worries and anxieties not being attended to, and being treated with contempt by the brussels oligarchy, that they are taking over governments like italy. that's a huge exaggeration. because all the pandering to right wing and anti—immigration feelings starts at the national level. yes. hang on, we are talking at cross purposes. you misunderstand me. that was my point, you misunderstood. the danger of nationalism and anti—immigrant feeling is what the eu is designed to suppress and because it has suppressed it with such derision and contempt, they're getting exactly what they wanted to avoid, which is mob rule. that might play into our later brexit discussion. there are human beings

at the root of this, there are still people dying trying to make the crossing. politicians are not talking about the root cause of why people still want to flee. exactly. ithink... i agree we are witnessing an existential crisis, but it is really of western liberal democracies. no one has figured out how to handle a great moment of massive migration from the south to the north. most people want you have refugees and asylum seekers dealt with humanely, but they also want border control. how do you square those two? no one has figured out how to do this. in the us, for instance, this week, we saw appalling images of children being detained. on the us border, we have seen

a situation like europe experienced in 2015. massively up on previous years? massively up from last year. so there is a crisis on the us border. trump has reversed his policy on separating children from their families but the crisis is not over, he has not ruling —— from their families but the crisis isn't over, he has not really released his zero tolerance policy on migrants, he still wants to stop what he has called catch and release, whereby migrants are detained, and with children, and then released to appear before a court later, often years later. and he will bump up against a court ruling that mandates that these children cannot be detained, even with their parents, for more than 20 days. this crisis will continue because he's made these arrangements to have these families housed on military bases and i think the courts will strike him down on that. his supporters would say he's been

upfront about his views on immigration right from the get go, right from the campaign, this was one of his platforms, to stop illegal migration, therefore, they would argue, he has every right to do so, he was elected on that mandate. he didn't campaign on separating children from their families, i would just say that. yes, he has made a calculated bet that this would play well with the base, he has privately said, as reported, "my people love this" but actually, i think, it has united the country in a way that we have not seen in a long time. the majority of people do not want children to be treated in this way. that specific policy was a step too far? it was step too far, and it has backfired on him, yes, it has split the republican party, laid open this difference as to how to handle it, and i think it has damaged the republican party, and that damage will not go away before the november midterms. he has this unrealistic expectation

that the republicans will gain control, gain more seats in congress and therefore be able to pass hardline immigration bill, that is unrealistic. the language he's used has been peculiarly offensive and inflammatory, at one point he talked about illegal immigrants infesting the society. i mean, does he have any idea of the historical precedent for referring to groups of people as vermin? that was astonishing! the ignorance it showed of 20th century... i am fully aware... i think he is fully aware of this. we see the language being used in hungary, we see it by the interior ministry in italy as well. yes, but on talking about donald trump being ignorant. i think he knows very well what he is doing, he is extremely dangerous. i'm not supporting this language, that goes without saying, it's totally inadmissible.

but i want to come back to the basic argument, america, europe, does any country, how much immigration can we accept to continue to cope with before we come back to our own national endeavour? you talk negatively about fortress europe, and you'll talk about it but there is nothing wrong with europe trying to figure out how they can cope with this enormous exodus. yes, but then western countries have to think very carefully about the impact of their foreign policy, their international development policies. as long as we'll be creating wars and instability in the developing world, as long as we'll insist on international trade regimes are incredibly disadvantageous to the developing countries, we are going to continue to see flows of migration coming to the north... that's a generation ago. there is a significant difference between the european response

of european communities to migration and america, america is a nation of immigrants, europe, there are provincial places, particularly in europe, where people's families have lived for ten generations, the idea of an influx of outsiders and migrants does have a significant impact on communities and to treat that with contempt or derision, to imply people are bigots because their communities are being disrupted in this way, is unfair, and it's a very important political lesson for europe to take in, and it seems incapable of taking it in. at the brussels commission level, national governments are having to take it in because they are elected and accountable. we will move on for now. we could fill many hours with this topic alone, so we will see, imminently, whether thomas is right when he says not much may be achieved by this mini summit in brussels this weekend. here in the uk, let's talk a little bit about events here, no sooner did prime minister theresa may survive a parliamentary vote about brexit, after a torrid time discussed last week, several major companies including

the aerospace giant airbus started ringing very loud and very public alarm bells this week about the risk of britain leaving the eu without a transition deal. airbus directly employs 111,000 people in this country, it said it may stop manufacturing here in the event of no deal. they said no deal would be catastrophic for their business. janet, goodness, we are meant to leave the eu nine months from now. can i say a word about airbus. they said, if we didn't join the euro, that was back in the day, they would pull out of the uk, then they said, if the leave vote one, then they would go out, it is getting a bit boring. —— if the leave vote one. their relationship with europe is dubious, they get an awful lot of money and subsidy. what they are saying is consistent with what the majority of companies have been saying. business hates uncertainty,

we all hate it but in a free—market economy and particularly a world that is going towards free trade, flexibility and adaptability are name of the game, if you can't adapt, business always does adapt, you cannot survive, that is the whole point of the capitalist economy as opposed to a totalitarian communist economy. getting onto the political question of theresa may, and surviving, this has been an extraordinarily exasperating period, people who write to me, who write, almost any commentator, are saying, why can't we just get on with it and the problem for theresa may, she has been presiding over a divided party. the significance of those defeats, those successes for her, the defeats of the remainers, the gaggle of remainers in the house

of commons, was very important, it means that in future, she can actually, and i think, from my private soundings, the war is over, i think the commons lobby for remain as finally given up the ghost. war is over within her party. yes, within her party, the remain, the significance of that climb—down was much greater even than it appeared, because i think there was tremendous pressure being put by those mps constituency parties and the party in general and so on, and public opinion, public opinion is getting fed up with obstructionism, even people who voted remain apparentlyjust want this to be over, they want to get on with this. the polling varies. the country is still divided. it is notjust people complaining about obstructionism. obstructionism by a particular coordinated campaign which seems to be in league with brussels, in fact, there is not going to be no deal...

there is going to be a deal. how do you know that? the biggest point is, we still don't know what it is. with nine months to go. the need to threaten to walk away, the need to say, no deal... "no deal is better than a bad deal"... is still, logically, absolutely imperative, as soon as she sets down your minimum requirements, they become maximum requirements. does theresa may need to just bluntly, with this area to go, just say that? is that wary? she has been trying to say that since the beginning, we can see the results are not very good because the british government has conceded throughout this 18 months or so, they have conceded every

demand made by brussels. as a bluffing strategy, it has not worked very well. brussels know very well that they have far more cards to play, than britain has. as a negotiating strategy, it has not worked very well. going back to the point where capitalism being good to adapt and should adapt, that is exactly what airbus is doing, they are saying, they are saying that, they are saying, this is what a capitalist company says, you do not offer us the conditions in which we want to do business, we go elsewhere. that is a threat, the problem is, thousands ofjobs on the line. i wasjust saying, they have made that threat three times now, and once you make a threat and do not carry it through, it is less convincing when you make it a second time and even less convincing the third time! your point is other companies are saying this as well. this is fundamentally different than the previous examples you cite, this is a major change in the trading relationship and their concerns echo countless other companies lobbying the government both in public and in private, a no deal scenario would be catastrophic for business and forjobs.

and i think what you will see in the coming months is companies with gloves off, they have been quiet, they have been diplomatic up until now, and it is crunch time now. that will focus minds on what brexit will really cost the country. on top of that, news this week that the eu is considering imposing visa requirements on eu citizens. these are the negative views that will come out in the run—up to the withdrawal treaty being presented before parliament, if it ever gets to that point, and then parliament, mps will have to look at this and think, we are going to spend 40 billion for this? what does this mean! is this really worth it? look at the political dimension, the kind of business, the being corporate businesses,

making these threats, the public is already alienated, many politicians already alienate it, because they feel that the interests of that kind of big global corporate industrial structure is not sympathetic to the needs of the communities that i was just talking about, the real people. and it is amazing, the consistency with which public opinion manages to say, first of all, "project fear", then "project fear" part two, now "project fear" part three, they say, these people are not interested in my future, they are interested in their profits, as viewed... they provide thejobs. brinkman is is very nice to talk about, "no deal is better than a bad deal", but results in a situation where i call up your argument of flexibility, britain has to be flexible... to the hilt! flexible, britain has been entirely to flexible. so far, so far that has not happened. we have discussed the trade element,

more on that to come. janet, while you are here, you talk about soundings taken from people very much inside westminster, your view, this week map as to theresa may herself, how long she will hold this out, we are always interested to ask for inside news on this on dateline? she will carry through with the negotiation period because they could not switch horses in midstream but i don't think she will carry on to the next election. —— dateline. if you want my tip as to who will be the leader of the conservative party, i would say, sajid javid, and has played a blinder, he has moved this week to make that extraordinarily open and generous offer to the eu citizens, now home secretary, interior minister. he has made an offer to eu citizens, which has wrong—footed brussels, really, they have made no competitors offer, no similar offer to british citizens, that was not only very civil and generous, but also tactically brilliant, because of the effect, it is now morally obliging to brussels, to make this offer, to british citizens living in the eu, and if they don't, that will be a really seriously bad mark.

never a question that offer would be made. people used to say that about britain and yet she was criticised, the government criticised for not having made the specific officer. he has made it clear, answer three questions, criminal offence, have you moved here for five years, are you settled, permanent address, that is it, you will have the right to live here. absolutely brilliant political move, i think the feeling is, he looks like and is the future of the conservative party. would—be a brilliant personnel decision to have sajid javid governing this country, he would stick all of these jeremy corbyn boxes, generous to europe, while britain is out, he is from a coloured, immigrant community, so he would be a british barack

obama, as it were... working—class background. his father was a pakistani bus driver, he has a back story to die for, forgive the cynicism, and that is, that would have enormous electoral appeal. and he has very good judgment, politically. far better than boris johnson, for instance, he is too much of a divisive character, sajid javid would unite. he looks like the future, boris johnson looks like the past. we still have two exit the eu first! with a deal, or not... i wonder whether i have time very quickly, your quick thoughts, we talk so much about a no deal, walking away, what would a no deal look like for the rest of europe? well, it would be pretty catastrophic in a sense because, europe has trade relations with britain, she is a major trading partner, and i don't think we could easily see her leaving the fold, as it were, and threaten as a result the business.

more than that, it would threaten the kiddies and of the eu, when a major power like britain leaves the club map and two germans it would be terrible, left alone with the french(!) and have to manage them. already, six years ago, they said, please don't leave us with the french, they are complaining all the time, they are not the partner we want. britain is a natural partnerfor germany, into free—trade, she has democratic institutions which rival and mirror our own. we would be terribly upset if it can do that. imagine for them being alone, a government at the forefront of trying to make it possible for britain to continue to have a working relationship with the eu. on that thought... possibly a degree of positivity... i hesitate to use that word...

much more to discuss this time next week, i hope you canjoin us then. we felt like we didn't have enough time to get through all of that this week, thank you for being with us, hope to see you next time. goodbye. hello. a textbook summer's week ahead for most of you. blue skies overhead, strong sunshine too and staying dry and for some of you, particularly hot this week. thankfully, it's a dry heat rather than humid so it means the nights are fairly comfortable. monday, temperatures in the countryside down to single figures, some centres in the teens throughout this week but with sunshine overhead, right from the start of the day,

things will warm up rapidly. the exception will be the highlands and islands, a bit cloudier there into the afternoon but it will break up every now and then, a bit of a breeze and temperatures in the teens and widely into the 20s elsewhere. scotland, 25 and 26 in parts, 25 to the west of northern ireland, and maybe our first 30 of the week in and around the london area. possibly hitting 30 as high pressure holding on. most places staying dry and sunny all week. patchy cloud on eastern coasts at times but otherwise, a perfect week of summer. welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. my name is duncan golestani. our top stories: president erdogan says the work begins immediately to fulfill his campaign pledges, after he wins the closely fought election. is working in bangladeshi refugee

camps —— the devastating legacy of sexual violence in the rohingya refugee camps of bangladesh. president macron insists eu leaders have all ruled out forcing refugees back to where they may face persecution. and an historic win for england puts them through to the last 16 of the world cup.