inews. i'm sharanjit leyl with bbc news. our top story: the far—right candidate, jair bolsonaro, has claimed victory in brazil's presidential election. bolsonaro pledged to defend the constitution, democracy and freedom. with almost all of the votes counted, he has secured 55% of the votes against 45% for fernando haddad from the left—wing workers‘ party. leicester city football club have confirmed that their chairman, thai businessman vichai srivaddhanaprabha, was among those killed on saturday evening when the helicopter carrying him and four others crashed outside the stadium. no—one on—board survived. and this video is trending on bbc.com: a new zealander has won his fourth world scrabble championship title at the finals in london. nigel richards clinched victory when he played the word "groutier," scoring 68 points. you are up—to—date. stay with us. just gone 12:30am here on bbc news

and now it's time for hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk, i'm stephen sackur. injust five months‘ time, britain will be out of the european union. but on what basis, and under whose leadership? and could it yet not happen? brexit uncertainty is coursing through the veins of british politics, leaving little room for anything else. the governing conservative party is deeply divided, as is the labour opposition. my guest, david lammy, is a prominent labour advocate of another referendum on any final brexit deal. but how would that help britain move beyond its brexit breakdown? david lammy, welcome to hardtalk.

thank you. you have been in the house of commons for, what, about 18 yea rs. house of commons for, what, about 18 years. can you ever remember a time when the atmosphere was more poisonous and politicians‘ ability to develop policy on the main issue of the day was more lacking? no, in short. i mean, this is an extraordinary period in the uk‘s history. there seems to be little common ground, frankly, between the senior politicians of the day. the country is hopelessly divided, and it is not entirely clear what the way through is, or indeed what the short, medium or long—term future of britain is to be. so the next few

months will be two more to us. i‘m quite sure about that. there will be a lot of coming and going i think in the political fabric and we will end up the political fabric and we will end up in the political fabric and we will end upina the political fabric and we will end up in a place that oversees up and up up in a place that oversees up and up in a place that oversees up and up in the european union or i think potentially with a second referendum and peoples‘ vote to determine the way forward —— tumultuous. and peoples‘ vote to determine the way forward -- tumultuous. you talk about the depth of the divisions and there‘s no question about the depth of the division in the ruling conservative party and it is not our dr baker go through those, what we need to do is analyse what the labour party is doing at a time when surely the onus, the obligation on the opposition is to be clear in its brexit strategy, clarity is the last thing that the labour party has come out with. i think that's probably fair enough. i out with. i think that's probably fairenough. i mean, out with. i think that's probably fair enough. i mean, the truth is that we had a referendum and it left the labour party divided. people in

seats like my own, in london, voting overwhelmingly to remain. and people in seats particularly in the industrial north voting to leave. and in that sense the labour party reflected the mood of the country. now it has always been my view that people voted for a whole raft of reasons. britain has been slow particularly to get wealth from london and the south—east to the seaside towns, to rule parts of the country, and to the north. and therefore, in a sense, while the lot was sold this referendum, sorry, that brexit would be the answer to those problems, it is clear now that the promises that were made cannot be delivered, and therefore people are changing their mind. labour members are changing their mind. and thatis members are changing their mind. and that is why, at the labour party conference, after lot of pressure from right across the country, was

decided that absolutely we should have a peoples vote in the event that we get no deal. i want to get to what you call this peoples‘ vote, a second referendum, of course, there has been a people‘s vote, there has been a people‘s vote, there was a referendum, and your side lost it but before we get to the argument about whether we should have another one, just a thought about the labour party‘s current position, we discussed about whether it is clear not. one thing is clear that the leadership says if and when theresa may over the next few weeks does finally after torturous negotiation get a deal with the eu 27 we will measure it by six tests. now on the face of it that might seem like a reasonable position but if one delves into those tests it becomes clear they have been set up ina way becomes clear they have been set up in a way that it is absolutely impossible for any deal that theresa may could conceivably do with the eu 27, impossible for her to meet the conditions in those six tests. so

labour without having the guts frankly to say it out loud is saving any deal that she does, we will reject. do you think that‘s responsible? well, i don't recognise what you‘re saying. labour have said they wanted jobs first brexit. my god ifan they wanted jobs first brexit. my god if an opposition said we don‘t wa nt god if an opposition said we don‘t wantjobs first god if an opposition said we don‘t want jobs first brexit god if an opposition said we don‘t wantjobs first brexit i think they would be barking. one of those six tests sorry, this is the key one, jobs first, no one can quibble with that, one of the six tests is, does the deal that she might do, does any deal that she will do deliver the exact same benefits as we currently have as members of the single market with the customs union? that is clearly impossible to meet. if you got a deal that was exactly the same as the single market in the customs union there would be no point in this entire procedure, the eu would be giving britain everything, allowing it to leave the club and enjoy the benefits of the club. the european union represents £274 billion worth of trade to the united

kingdom. it is 44% of our trading. it is our fundamental eu partner. of course the opposition party wants us to have frictionless trade and wants us to have frictionless trade and wants us to remain within the single market and would absolutely negotiate on those terms if we were in the driving seat. of course. because, to do anything other than that, is to wreck the british economy and that is what we are now seeing. we are seeing that those who said that we could have everything, that europe needed us more than we‘d ended them, that is turning out not to be the case and... exactly but still using that debate yourselves. david davis and others in the conservative party came out with this formulation that we will leave but we will have all of the benefits we had before. it clearly couldn‘t be delivered and yet you‘re still insisting it must be delivered. it is alice in wonderland. there was a

scenario under which if we had gone for the norway model, the eea model, where you are a rule take a bite you are very approximate to the single market, —— take out but you are very approximate to the single market. according to the assessment if we had gone without, gdp would be hit down by about 1.5%, so on that basis it is absolutely right that the opposition says, remain in the customs union. we need to be in the single market or proximate and close to the single market and that is the basis on which we would negotiate. absolutely right. you are co mforta ble absolutely right. you are comfortable with the labour party having a position which means it will reject out of hand any deal that theresa may brings? let me be clear, i voted against article 50. can you just ask the question —— a nswer can you just ask the question —— answer the question. can you just ask the question —— answer the questionlj can you just ask the question —— answer the question. i will vote against the deal on any basis because i think this is madness. i have been absolutely clear that. and it is my assessment on the basis of what we are seeing now that the

tearing up of the cheque is planned that labour will vote against the deal. -- chequers. labour will vote against any deal the pm brings back. you‘re going to split your own party because it is —— there are some may i say more realistic mps, i will namea i say more realistic mps, i will name a couple, gareth snell, caroline flint who have said in recent days the labour party position is very dangerous. to quote gareth snell, i think the labour party has to be very careful that we are not unwittingly becoming the midwife to a no—deal brexit, that‘s what he sees in the position you have just laid out. theresa may would like to caricature this vote asa would like to caricature this vote as a vote on any deal she can get or no deal. that is not actually what parliament is about. parliament is about delivering for the people and therefore if we don‘t like the deal that she comes back with, and let me just say, i see no prospect of theresa may getting this deal... that is by the by but we are talking

about the labour party... it is not by the by, it is fundamental! we are talking about the labour party position and its responsibility. our responsibility is to oppose and to stand up for working people. you are going to make a no—deal brexit much more likely, that is the truth. absolutely not! because what we have said is that we would seek an amendment asking for a peoples vote. so why does it make more likely? it doesn‘t at all. so why does it make more likely? it doesn't at all. i don't know if your good friend and colleague cheika imon said this notion of a second referendum what you call a people‘s vote doesn‘t have majority support or anything like it in the house of commons. it can‘t and won‘t happen. we are in a situation today where, at some point in the next few weeks we will get a deal. in some senses, stephen and i say this with all honesty, this is shadowboxing —— chuka umunna. when you have a deal

or no deal that is the moment when all of this will coalesce and actually the options for what you do with that deal become important. now i have said to you it is generally the view in westminster that theresa may can‘t get a deal through parliament. once that has happened... into the prospect of amendments to the bill she has to put forward. that is where are people‘s vote is one of the options, or indeed there may be further amendments or more she should be going back to europe to negotiate. just a thought. i don‘t want to spend the entire interview on brexit. but just thought spend the entire interview on brexit. butjust thought on the notion that another referendum could sort out britain‘s brexit mess. i‘m not going to quote you the brexiteers or think is preposterous and an absolute breaking of the trust with the british people, but because of their vote in the first referendum. absolutely not. i'm going to quote you one of the most respected observers lord hennessy, peter hennessy, he says there is, if people were asked to think again and come up with a different "right

a nswer come up with a different "right answer this time" it is both immensely patronising and it would convince those in the country who think the system is rigged against them that indeed it is rigged against them by some kind of metropolitan elite. those are the words of peter hennessy. metropolitan elite. those are the words of peter hennessylj metropolitan elite. those are the words of peter hennessy. i don't accept that and let me explain why. the first thing to say is that we had a referendum in which the people gave the british prime minister and instruction to go off and negotiate. it is entirely acceptable once you have that negotiation come to an end and you have a deal to ask the british people if they would like the deal. you cannot undermine democracy with more democracy! that seems to me to suggest that you should have a general election on day one and live with the same party for ever. every single democratic country in the world goes back to the electorate. do you want to be in or out of the european union, and 5296 or out of the european union, and 52% of the british people, given that choice, said out. it is quite

plain and simple and that‘s democracy. it was an advisory referendum in which the instruction was to the government to go and negotiate, that was the basis. scotla nd negotiate, that was the basis. scotland didn‘t vote for it, northern ireland didn‘t vote for it. it was in or out and the people... london didn‘t vote for it and substantial tracts of the country. i might say that there was serious fraud in the vote leave campaign, there were lies that were told, and there were lies that were told, and there is real concern that it was outside —— that there was outside interference which is being investigated by the metropolitan police. what would the question be in the second referendum? do you like the deal that we have got, or would you like to remain in the european union? that is what we need to put to the people. and let me just say, when the governor of the bank of england has said that if we get no deal and there is a real prospect of no deal, that house prices will fall by 35%, and the recession in britain will be deeper than 2008. as night follows day of

course we should ask the people whether they want this. the problem with your binary choice is that it leaves out all of those people, and there will be millions of them, who may not like the deal but want to leave the european union anyway. look, then that... they are not to be represented a supposed. that is absolutely not, because we live in a democracy and clearly there will be some in the country that like the deal and want to vote for the deal but you should seek the consent of the people to a deal that will make the people to a deal that will make the country poorer on any basis, any basis, i think it‘s all right and legitimate to ask the people, do they like the deal. if they like the deal then we go forward. if they don‘t then we remained within the european union. let me change tack a little bit and consider your political life, what you carried out, judging from your record over the last 18 years, which i would say i issues of what you see as grave

inequality in this country, race issues as well, that is, of racial inequality and discrimination. today a report came out from the equality and human rights commission saying britain is at risk of becoming a two speed society with a string of alarming backward steps in recent yea rs. alarming backward steps in recent years. i would alarming backward steps in recent years. iwould put alarming backward steps in recent years. i would put it to you that the fixation that you and others have with, sort of, changing the course of brexit is diverging so much attention, political time and resource from actually the issues that your career as a whole would suggest you care about most. on the contrary, stephen. parliament has now spent two years with only brexit dominating. if we are to exit the european union, the legislation in parliament to deal with the consequences of that will go on for another decade. and you are quite right. we need to fix education. we need to resource the nhs. we‘ve got

a huge housing crisis here in london and in much of the country. fundamental issues that we‘ve got to be getting on and dealing with. i‘m afraid actually, what we should be doing is getting to the end of this relentless debate on our relationship with europe and dealing with a profound problems, and i think the best way forward on that is actually a people‘s vote. think the best way forward on that is actually a people's vote. let's talk about the profound problems, as you see them. do you see britain‘s problems, primarily — particular your constituents and the people you work with day by day, do you see that their most profound problems area that their most profound problems are a result of issues of class or race discrimination? well, the two go hand—in—hand, obviously. i don‘t like the distinct ridge between one and the other. the truth is that there are profound inequalities in britain, in an age in which the technological revolution means that there has been a massive loss of jobs in the middle of the economy. written has struggled to devolve

wealth out of london and the south—east —— britain. and on top of that, in an era in which it has all been about immigration, yes, i‘m afraid our loan figures demonstrate that we‘ve had a 40% rise in hate crime, and there are real, entrenched inequalities for black, asian and minority ethnic people in our country. all of the figures. less employment, doing less well in education, doing less well in housing, and we‘ve got a huge problem in our prison system, that david cameron asked me to look into, because of the amount of black and ethnic minorities in our present. those are profound problems. but sitting alongside those are problems of economy and wealth that of course affect white working—class populations in britain as well. let me ask you a personal question. it seems to be politicians all have their own and distinctive styles. yours is a very personal style, and it involves the injection of a great

deal of passion and at times a great deal of passion and at times a great deal of passion and at times a great deal of anger into politics. i am thinking of your response to the tragic fire at grenfell, the tower block where more than 70 people lost their lives. i‘m thinking also about your reaction to the so—called windrush generation who were forced to leave this country having made their lives if many, many years. you get angry their lives if many, many years. you getangry in their lives if many, many years. you get angry in public. do you think that serves your issues well? well, i don‘t describe what i do as angry. it may be passionate, but i‘ve got to say, 72 people lost their lives inafire to say, 72 people lost their lives in a fire that could have been prevented, and absolutely we have do have politicians that will speak truth to power, when you look at the faces of those who died. and when you challenge me on windrush, britain stopped deporting its own nationals to australia in 1868. how can it be right, when we had a

generation of people that arrived here from the caribbean, that gave this country so much, that you stripped them of their rights, you deport them, you detain them, you deny them access to pensions, to healthcare, and deny them access to pensions, to healthca re, and that deny them access to pensions, to healthcare, and that is not something that should animate and make people furious that this has happened in britain‘s name? of course. and let mejust say, these are the descendants of enslaved people that was done by this country. it is horrendous, and of course, it has animated me, because these included my parents and our generation. but it is part of a rhetoric, and it is a rhetoric around immigration, it is a rhetoric around immigration, it is a rhetoric around difference, it is not consistent with a civilised democracy, and we should call it what it is. you do not get to say that you are going to have trade deals with the world, and then treat the world‘s population that arrives here because of your colonial past

in such an atrocious way. do you believe, looking at politics today, that there is institutional racism m, that there is institutional racism in, for example, the home office, which of course was the department responsible for the windrush decisions? do you believe, when you look at policing in london today, that there is institutional racism? racism and discrimination exists in britain, of course it does. i do believe that windrush is an example of systemic discrimination against low hanging fruit, which was british nationals who ultimately were subjects because of empire, treated as they were because of the colour of their skin. that is my sincere belief. yes, systemic prejudice and dissemination of those people. how do you best use the leveraged you have? iam do you best use the leveraged you have? i am very mindful of your personal story. as you just said, you were brought up by a mother who came from guyana, made a life in north london, lived in poverty, your

father left home. you managed to get a great education, went to one of london‘s best universities, than to harvard university as well. you now, having been a barrister, are a politician. you have succeeded in britain, despite everything that we‘ve just discussed. so britain, despite everything that we‘vejust discussed. so how britain, despite everything that we‘ve just discussed. so how do you leveraged what power and influence you have mastered to help others? every day of my life, that is why it is so important to me to speak authentically and with power about these subjects. but let me just say... but going back to where i began, the record, a report from the equality and human rights commission today saying that britain is seeing an alarming string of backward steps, that it is at risk of becoming a two speed and two tier society. that 18 years of yours in politics doesn‘t seem to have yielded very much. we are in a paradox. written at its best is a country where someone like me can advance and do well —— britain. it

isa advance and do well —— britain. it is a country, relatively, in europe, which feels that it can be fair and that you can get a fair crack of the whip. but yes, there are forces in this country that want to take this country back. there are forces that believe the empire was good, and why we should reject the european union and recreate a new imperialism. it doesn‘t seem to understand britain‘s history, and britain‘s history is not just a history history, and britain‘s history is notjust a history of winning the war, and hitler, and of king henry and the henry is. it is a history also of colonialism and empire. there is good and there is bad in that story. and actually, modern britain, face up to that. be robust and honest about that. say we‘ve learnt from that, and actually the opportunity to be a multicultural country, at ease with its history and itself, is impressive. we saw that at best in 2012 when we won the olympics and did this amazing ceremony and put on an amazing show

for the world. that‘s britain at its best. but the summer before, the 2011 riots, was perhaps britain at its worst. so there‘s a paradox in this, and absolutely i want to bend that park of history towards justice and towards the better place of ourselves in this country —— arc of history. well, moving words, but let me ask you a final and difficult personal question. you are a prominent black politician in the united kingdom. you, undertony blairand united kingdom. you, undertony blair and gordon brown, were given ministerial posts. currently you have no position in the shadow cabinet of the labour party, and when you were asked about this recently, you said something that perhaps smacked of personal anger. you said, of why you are not in the shadow cabinet, go and ask a white men who run my party. go and ask them. don‘t come to me and asked me. ask them why they chose in her chosen. is there still an undercurrent of discrimination even

inside your own party? of course the labour party is not immune to issues of discrimination and prejudice. but that was not what i was indicating. the truth is, i am one of britain‘s most prominent politicians, and i do it from the backbenchers. that‘s why you‘ve invited me on to this show. i‘m hugely privileged and fortunate to have gone to harvard, to have had ministerial roles. i am able to do what i do odd behalf of the people i represent and others in this country from the back benches. but in the end, i don‘t run the labour party. jeremy corbyn runs the labour party. and so if you want to ask why david lammy isn‘t in the shadow position, then the question is best directed at him, not at me. what am then the question is best directed at him, not at me. whatam i co mforta ble at him, not at me. whatam i comfortable with where i am, i‘m able to effect change from where i am, doifind able to effect change from where i am, do i find colleagues from other parties, like david cameron, asking me to doa

parties, like david cameron, asking me to do a review of our present system ? me to do a review of our present system? yes, me to do a review of our present system ? yes, i me to do a review of our present system? yes, i do. so i personally am very fortunate and i believe unable to stand up for the people i believe in. david lammy, we have two and they are, but thank you very much for being on hardtalk. —— we have to end there. hello. after a week that brought some dramatic changes in our weather, from being very mild in the middle of last week, to very cold this weekend, looks like the pattern for the week ahead will also see things swinging from one extreme to the next. pretty quiet and chilly start, milder midweek, and then potentially pretty stormy by friday.

here we are first thing on monday. a widespread frost, minus five in the west. eastern coastal counties always a little bit milder, thanks to the breeze off the north sea. a few showers in here again on monday. this front tries to get into the west, but it‘s not going to have much luck. it will, though, feed some high cloud into northern ireland and western scotland, so the sunshine a little bit hazier here through the second part of the day. a lot of fine weather around. temperatures still, though, somewhat below average. perhaps not feeling quite as cold, though, without the keen northerly wind. overnight monday into tuesday, low pressure rolling up from the continent heads into the north sea. this is causing us some uncertainty in our forecasts for tuesday, just how closely it will graze the eastern side of the uk. at the moment, it looks like eastern counties will get some rain and experience some quite strong winds. just how far that pushes onto our shores, though, does remain in question. for many, though, again the prospect of a reasonable day, if somewhat on the cool side. that low, however, will be away to the north tuesday to wednesday, and through wednesday daytime,

we‘re going to start to feed this front in from the atlantic, with a southerly airflow. that is going to make things feel considerably milder to the south of the uk come wednesday afternoon. temperatures back closer to average — not the warmth we had last week, but perhaps up to 13 in london with some sunshine. some heavy rain possible further west. some sunshine for the north—east of scotland, but i think still feeling quite chilly here. but it all turns into a bit of a mixed up mess wednesday into thursday. clearest thinking for us at the moment is that we‘ll see a weather front to the east of the uk on thursday, bringing some rain through the day that will eventually clear out into the north sea. some showers in the west, but generally, again, not a bad day. we‘re talking about temperatures getting into the average range of figures by the time we get to thursday. friday promises something mild. it also promises something pretty unpleasant. mild air coming in from the atlantic as this low rolls across us. this is the remnants of tropical storm oscar. it looks like a bullseye. tightly packed isobars mean strong

to gale—force winds widely across the uk on friday, the potential for some heavy rain as well. so in the week ahead, we go from a chilly, quiet, calm start again into a stormy picture. all change in the days ahead. i‘m sharanjit leyl in singapore. the headlines: tributes from around the world for leicester city chairman and thai billionaire vichai srivaddhanaprabha, who‘s died in a helicopter crash outside the club‘s stadium. this is the scene live in rio, as supporters of the far—right candidate, jair bolsonaro, celebrate his victory in brazil‘s highly divisive presidential campaign. i‘m babita sharma in london. also in the programme: authorities in pittsburgh name the 11 victims of a shooting at a synagogue in the worst

anti—semitic attack in recent us history. and crowdfunding on a massive scale in pakistan. the government tries to raise $17 billion to build two hydroelectric dams.