the 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 sixteen leaders had ruled out forcing refugees back to countries where they might face persecution. 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 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 flake 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 their own president? 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 present 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 aren't working but arguably they are working, he 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't judge really orfairly. that was a dog whistle to those, the baser 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 when over about six weeks there were about 2,300 children separated, he was enforcing a law that already 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 flores settlement which says you can't hold children and because you 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. prior administrations faced with the same dilemma handled that commitment 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 as these 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%. 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 but he lays the blame squarely at the democrats. i was part of the so—called gang of eight and have 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 all 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 his 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 to have worked on better reform. what we passed in 2013, the so—called 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 northern 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 right 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 asylum cases, which a lot of these are, they will simply come to the points of entry into the border. so the wall is not a berlin wall—type of wall. g ratefully. 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 the terrain is 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, so this notion of a 2,500—mile wall is ludicrous and the president recognises that, as does

the department. we need more resources 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 2,500—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 being able to say, i got a wall. initially, the mexicans were going to pay for it. he still says that. nobody believes it. to be 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 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 for 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 ofjustice and if we can continue to 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 or jobs, sometimes immigration. now the most important 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? 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'd done, he tweeted, the reason senator flak 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 his 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, 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 vote for him when they think it's right and vote against him when they think it's 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 right now. i could have, 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 also about 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 he 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. 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, i voted a0 times before he came along.

you don't object to what he is doing, just the way he is doing it? trade policy, no opportunity to push back on the president's trade policy. a huge mistake to exit the tra ns—pacific partnership and a worse mistake if we 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 ban was patently unconstitutional and unwise 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 plants to keep them alive, regardless of whether they are economically viable or not. those are the policies i support. you also said when you were criticising him, the most vexing thing, the supposed hoax at the heart of the russia investigation. do you think that president trump is only in power

because russia influenced the election? no, i don't. i do think the russians tried to influence the election, they did intervene, not at the behest, but certainly at the benefit of donald trump. we don't know if that was dispositive 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 bob mueller. the investigation is going on. president hasn't done anything to stop it. right, well, he hasjust tried to undermine it. so i hope he lets it take its course, that he

doesn't fire bob mueller, rosenstein orjeff sessions. 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. the president — this is a real problem i have as well, is that calling fake news real and real news 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 news charges that echo the language that he uses. that is very detrimental. but when you accused him and you picked up accusing him of using stalinist language, the republican national committee chairwoman tweeted that

you have gone too far, comparing the leader of the free world to murderous dictators is absurd. certainly i don't compare him to stalin. i say that certainly the president of the united states should know better than to use a phrase that someone like stalin made famous, that is what i was pointing out. 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 — whilst there are people in the united states who are strongly opposed to him, amongst the republican base he gets

ratings of 85% or even more. it's his — the argument is that he is doing the right thing and you shouldn't even be there. you have lost. well, 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 throw out a lot that were enacted by the previous administration. the president has done a lot of good things on regulation. we were overburdened on the regulatory state that has been a good thing for the economy, even better than the tax cuts. they were important as well, particularly for corporate tax. 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. if somebody is doing well, somebody must be losing. president trump has imposed tariffs

on steel and aluminium and there are retaliatory tariffs at least from the eu being put in place, do you see it as inevitable that there will be a trade war? yes. i don't know how you can impose tariffs and stick to them like that. what is even worse... how will it play out? people say, ultimately, he is saying this is a bad deal for america. he is in it to get a better dealfor americans. right. nafta. 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 were the main architect of and that if we have issues with china, and we have many, some of our 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, already has been, from the european union, canada and mexico. and the response is then to ratchet up yet again. nobody wins trade wars. but you recognise even that you have lost the argument, don't you? for a time. i do think that we will get through this, we have to. populism is called 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 so far and there are pendulum swings in american politics. so i do think that this is president trump's 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's of that behaviour or his politics, but that is not always the case. how long? i don't know. it could be... you have said and you wrote a book, you said these are the spasms of a dying party.

is the republican party dying? if we continue on this course, yes. look at the demographics. women and young people have been walking away from the party for a while. they are in a dead sprint right now. looking 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've got to appeal to a broader base. now, a couple of months later, we chased a populist. you can win the election here or there, but overall there are simply not enough people... what is the answer?

you are not alone, there was the likes of steve schmidt, a long—time strategist who was advising george w bush and john mccain, he has renounced his membership of the party because he says it is fully the party of donald trump, it is corrupt, indecent and immoral. 0ur politics are broken. what is the option for someone like you, to stand for another party? no. our history has proven that two strong parties produces pretty good government, usually divided government is best, if you believe in fiscal conservatism for example, liberal government, economic freedom, you at least need a divided government periodically. so i hope the republican party can come back. so you are not walking away from the party, renouncing your membership? no. i'm not. you will stand in the party and do what? stand against him as president? i said i hope someone else does run in the republican primary. would you? i haven't ruled it out,

but i would rather not. i have been in politics now 18 years in congress, i would rather wait until this fever breaks. i did 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 is what is so interesting. well i do hope somebody goes out to remind republicans what republicans stand for and what conservatives stand for and that offer an optimistic vision of where we should go. you talk about the situation being a recipe for disaster and you use the word danger, the pendulum needs to swing back. how dangerous — or how disastrous — could things get you for the pendulum swings back? well, if you spark a full—scale trade war, then that effects the global economy. it's notjust our economy, it is the world economy that is affected. if you continue to express fondness for authoritarianism, then you give licence to governments that shouldn't have that licence or that credibility. so it 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 orbit, but will be sucked into china's vortex. and for somebody who expresses, and i think quietly so, this opinion that it is china, they are a competitor, we have certainly done everything that we shouldn't have done if we were to address that situation because we have made it far easier for china to 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. appreciate it. 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 0ban. 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 throughout 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 and it means it will be dry. but also, the high pressure is starting with dry air in it. the air is circulating around it throughout the week and with dry ground underneath, blue skies overhead, warms up steadily day by day. a difference in wind direction means a slight change in temperature from one day to the next. single figures in the countryside and suburbs. bit of warmth held by the buildings in the city centres and sunshine overhead is quickly building on monday. bit more cloud into the afternoon compared to sunday compared to the hebrides, the highlands, the islands. here, temperatures into the mid—teens, with blue skies elsewhere. sunny spells. blue skies elsewhere. temperatures, 26. perhaps our first 30 of the week in and around the london area. ending the day with lots of heat, a lovely sunset.

still some cloud through the night and into the far north. the heat is draining away for tuesday morning. the air, dry. the night, still fresh enough. temperatures in the city centres in the teens into tuesday morning. in the countryside, back down into single figures and the big difference with tuesday, a breeze in the west bringing more cloud to ireland and western scotland. then outside chance of a shower. very, very limited. vast majority will be dry. sunnier in the far north of scotland. we have more cloud. to eastern coastal counties, the threat of sea fog patches. temperatures down on monday's values. into wednesday, we will see the heat build yet again across western areas this time. the deeper red on the cart. temperatures could push 30 degrees. certainly the high 20s. there will be more of an easterly breeze on wednesday towards the eastern coast. refreshingly cool, if you have somewhere to escape the heat should you need it. by night, temperatures will hover around the teens. luckily the air is dry and not desperately humid so we're not going to see the exceptionally high overnight temperatures. sheffield, a good example there. we continue with the heat throughout the day. lots of sunshine. maybe cooling off in scotland and northern ireland towards the weekend. this is the briefing.

i'm sally bundock. our top stories: turkey's newly re—elected president erdogan says the work begins immediately to fulfil his campaign pledges. from istanbul to after winning the tightly contested election, what is next for president erdogan and the ever more devoted turkey? —— divided. ahead of a major summit on migration later this week, france's president macron says eu leaders have ruled out forcing refugees back to countries where they may face persecution. a historic win for england puts them through to the last 16 of the world cup.