and what this means in the way that our society works, in the way that our institutions work, in the things that we take for granted. ijust feel like, like, i love her. for these girls, they're looking forward to meeting the woman who means so much to them. adina campbell, bbc news. time for a look at the weather... here's chris fawkes. we've got rain around at the moment gci’oss we've got rain around at the moment across england and wales. not the last of the rain we will see. it will often be cloudy, rain returns a mid week onwards and it will be windy towards the end of the week, possibly disruption by friday. on the radar picture an area of rain pushing across england and wales and showers into the north—west. although it is cloudy for much of north wales, it is sunny for northern ireland. what a glorious

picture this is sent in from the dumfries and galloway area. through the rest of the afternoon the rain will push away and will stay cloudy with further showers, particularly affecting southeast england and east anglia. mild in the south with temperatures 13 or 1a celsius. further north we have the cooler air in scotland. overnight, we will continue to see the sky is generally clear and the winds will fall like. it will be cold and with showers working into western scotland and widespread, sharp frost, icy stretches ins western scotland and could have wintry showers on the high ground. temperatures getting down to as low as minus five also be towns and cities will be dipping below freezing. a cold start to tuesday and tuesday isn't about start in terms of sunshine. the cloud wil trapp the cold air. it

will be the coldest day of the week ahead with temperatures struggling. five to seven celsius, maybe nine in london and 11 towards south west england as it turns milder late in the day as rain spreads in. we have rain in the forecast on wednesday. the rain will be heavy across western areas, winds turning to a milder, south—westerly and that will drag my other air in. temperatures reaching double figures for many across england and wales. still hanging onto the cold air in scotla nd still hanging onto the cold air in scotland where it should be bright and sunny. towards the end of the week, i said we are going to see a speu week, i said we are going to see a spell of windy weather. into friday's bc idiot area of low pressure targeting the north—west of the uk. we are talking about severe gales and the risk of transport. rain around, heavy on friday in clearing late in the day. the blustery end to the week and it could cause one or two problems but we will keep you posted. a reminder of our main

story this lunchtime time is against us — as un climate talks begin in poland they're described as the most critical since the 2015 paris agreement. that's all from the bbc news at one. so it's goodbye from me and on bbc one we nowjoin the bbc‘s news teams where you are. hello there, you're watching bbc news. i'm olly foster at the bbc sport centre. mark hughes has been sacked by southampton after eight months in charge. he leaves the club in the relegation zone just one point off the bottom of the table. our sports correspondent andy swiss is with me, they got that decent draw at home to manchester united over the weekend but it didn't buy hughes any more time so who's in the running to replace him? saturday was the final straw.

southampton led two them but couldn't hold on against manchester united, that has been a recurrent problem for mark hughes, they have thrown away a lot of winning position, he was brought in at the tail end of last season with the clu b tail end of last season with the club battling against relegation, he did pretty well at first, he was given a contract over the summer after keeping them up. things haven't worked out. just one win in 14 haven't worked out. just one win in 1a premier league matches so far this season, simply not good enough. the club have issued a brief statement saying they would like to thank mark hughes for all his effo rts thank mark hughes for all his efforts and their search for a new manager is already under way. so who will the new manager? it is very tight down there, it is not all doom and gloom. we are the right side of christmas but it's a relegation battle, who are we looking at? christmas but it's a relegation battle, who are we looking aflm will be interesting, in the short—term assistant coach kelvin davis will take charge of the next game on wednesday, in the longer term, one name that a lot of people

are talking about is ralph harson. he is the former manager of rb leipzig. he was touted as a possible replacement for arsene wenger earlier in the season, another name thatis earlier in the season, another name that is being linked is sanchez flores, the former watt fort manager. we understand he would be interested if southampton came knocking, also a few of the customary names like david moyes, alan pardew, customary names like david moyes, alan pa rdew, whoever customary names like david moyes, alan pardew, whoever it is southampton want to get on with it. they want to make a full—time appointment by the weekend. thank you. that is all we have time for. let's cross now to parliament, where the commons' brexit committee are hearing evidence from the new brexit secretary, stephen barclay, and olly robbins, the prime minister's europe adviser. secured actual a hard fought

negotiation, lasting over two years where the prime minister fought day and night to secure a good deal for this country that honours the referendum, the point if we don't deliver deliver on that we risk uncertainty, as the prime minister has set out that, could be no deal, 01’ no has set out that, could be no deal, or no brexit, a. sure many reflect different perspectives on the referendum will explore both sides but the point is we will move into uncharted water, significant uncertainty a and that could be no deal, but it could also be no brexit and that is the risk and both option, that uncertainty will be very damaging for the jobs of your constituent, the jobs of mine and thatis constituent, the jobs of mine and that is why this deal is the right dealfor us. let that is why this deal is the right deal for us. let me ask you one more time, would you personally support leaving the european union with no

deal? well, we are preparing for no deal, there is significant work. we know you are preparing but is it something that you would be prepared to support, to leave... what i support mr benn is the deal that the prime minister has negotiated and thatis prime minister has negotiated and that is what we are focussed on. but one can second guess and you are really a question on the legal advice pointed to this very issue, one cannot second guess how the house will react, but it is the government's focus to deliver on this deal because as a number of senior european figures have made clear, this is the only deal and is a deal that the business community support, it gives them the certainty they need forjobs but it is also one that doesn't damage our democracy, because not honouring the referendum, the biggest vote in our history will be hugely damaging for democracy, and be divisive for the country. well i democracy, and be divisive for the country. welll hear democracy, and be divisive for the country. well i hear what you say for i would on serve the job of

government is to prepare for all eventualities. we are. you are preparing for a no deal exit. can i turn to you mr rob bons, can i express turn to you mr rob bons, can i ex press pressure turn to you mr rob bons, can i express pressure asian to you and your colleagues for the hard work your colleagues for the hard work you have put in to these, into these negotiations in what i think it would be fair to describe as challenging circumstances. if you could convey those thanks on behalf of the committee we would appreciate it. do you think the customs backstop is a bad outcome for the uk, and if so why? i think that the backstop is not the future relationship that either the uk or the eu wants to have with one another. and so it is an uncomfortable position for both sides. and the reality is, as you know, chair, the evidence from us and in your meetings in brussels, is that there is not a withdrawal agreement without a backstop. that reflects of course also as i said to

this committee before, ministers‘ commitment to northern ireland and to avoid a hard border on the island of ireland rather than be being imposed on us, it‘s a necessity and sightly uncomfortable for both sides. in what way would it put our security cooperation at risk, if it came into being? so, the provisions of the northern ireland protocol do not extend current security cooperation. the, everything we want to do as partners for the european union on the security front is in the political declaration, and i think ministers are pleased an satisfied with where that has come out, but, none of that is automatically conveyed by the legal text of the northern ireland protocol. can you tell us what the impact would be on trade between gb and the eu, if we were to enter backstop, what kind of friction would be involved, that wouldn‘t

apply to northern ireland but it would be to gb eu trade, so could you could tell us what that friction would be? i can't precisely, chair, no, because that would depend on a whole series of other factor, including the level of alignment and regulatory cooperation between the eu and great britain in those circumstances. how would that be determined? we circumstances. how would that be determined ? we could circumstances. how would that be determined? we could be facing having to take a decision on whether to enter the backstop, what, within a year—and—a—half‘s time, the choice do we go for the backstop, do we go foran do we go for the backstop, do we go for an extension of the transition period, are you saying that you would expect something would be worked out that would add to what we already know about the backstop between now and then? because we have had evidence that says there would be some friction, because obviously the, gb would be in a different place from northern ireland. all i different place from northern ireland. alll am different place from northern ireland. all i am saying mr chairman is there is no presumption in the

backstop is there is no presumption in the ba cksto p of is there is no presumption in the backstop of fluid frayed between great britain and the european union what the text says is that the degree of regulatory cooperation between the united kingdom as a whole, and the european union, will of course be a factor, in the way both parties decide how to set their systems is of checks and controls, so, nothing is assumed in either direction. why doesn't the word frictionless, which used to the government‘s policy, frictionless trade appear in the political declaration, is is it because we didn‘t ask or the eu would agree to it? so, the government's put forward its proposals on how to achieve frictionless trade with the eu as you know, vociferously especially since the white paper injuly and as i think the prime minister briefed you last week, some november of those proposals have gained fraction, others are still difficult. what ministers were pleased about is that the political

direction that is laid out in the declaration makes clear that it is ambition of both sides to achieve as foreign affairs committeeionless a relationship as possible, and that at the extreme restrictionless is not ruled out but i don‘t think ministers lest of all the prime minister are hiding from the fact we still have a job to do convince people of the detail of the that.” think the key in the deal is it will bea think the key in the deal is it will be a sovereign choice and throughout the negotiations, the prime minister was told it was a binary choice, a choice twine canada or a choice between norway, while the political declaration makes clear is she has secured a bespoke relationship which gives a spectrum so there is a choice twine frictionless and alignment but that is a sovereign choice. finally from me, when it comes to services because i have asked you about goods, but when it comes to services under the backstop if it kicks in, for example british broadcasters can broadcast to all

member states with a single license, would that come to an fend the backstop came into operation? it‘s a factual question. would you like me to take that. the protocol only relates to those aspects of eu law that are required in order to avoid a border in northern ireland, so thatis a border in northern ireland, so that is about tan jingle good, a border in northern ireland, so that is about tanjingle good, it says nothing about service, so if the backstop were to apply in the absence of any other agreement, with the european union, there would be no services relationship. so there would be no relationship. mutual recognition of qualification architects and lawyer, the current arrangements would come to an end, so any arrangement that our services sector which is 80% of the british economy, 8le 0% would come to an end under the backstop. that is correct, is it? so a whole series of

relationships in both directions between 2 eu and the uk, in the absence of any other agreement, are not catered for by the protocol which is why it is an uncomfortable situation for both sides. but the government never asked for anything on service, that was the whole point, i think it is hard to blame the backstop for the fact it won‘t cover service because the dott didn‘t ask for services when it came out the chequers proposal came out. i think that is correct, is it not? i don‘t think that is completely fair i don‘t think that is completely faierchairman. the i don‘t think that is completely fair mr chairman. the political declaration i think remembering the hours that we spent discussing it, is clear about the level of ambition on both sides on services and says that it wants those service relationships to be well in excess of the arrangements standard under wto arrangement and go beyond those beyond recent fta, like other aspects the eu side is agreeing with

this this should not be a standard third country... i do acknowledge the point. i mentioned it is not covered by the backstop which could kick in. can i stay on the subject of the northern ireland backstop, because i think it is probably one of the most problematic areas within the withdrawal agreement. can i start secretary of state by asking are there provision of the that protocol you are concerned about or are you come can fortable with the way it is drafted? there are there are compromises. concerns that you have, what would be the specific concerns that you have about the way the current backstop is drafted well, i think the first point i make is the intention is not to go into the backstop so there is a number of safeguards, one of which is the option to avoid going into the backstop. there is things like for example extending the interim period, implementation period. there is safeguards in terms of coming out of the backstop in terms of the best

endeavours at the requirement for the timetabling, the options in terms of technology that was put into the political declaration, and then as mr robins has set out the backstop is uncomfortable for both sides. because for example, if you ta ke sides. because for example, if you take fisheries, on the fisheries side, the eu 27 would lose all access under the backstop to our coastal waters, so the safeguards in terms of front end of the backstop, there is safeguards at the back end of the backstop in terms of coming out and there is a mutual interest in not retaining, not being stuck in the backstop, and that is reflected in part five of the political declaration that sets a time frame. so, there is a mutual desire on both sides not to be in it but in terms of the areas that are less appealing of the areas that are less appealing of it, obviously there will be i think 92 pages of rules where there

would be alignment and obviously one would be alignment and obviously one would have preferred not to have required the 2 pages but the reason for those, we should be clear, the reason for the backstop, is because it is unique within the united kingdom, in terms of the border and in terms of the history in terms of the peace settlement, and that is why the special bespoke circumstances had been arranged but there is a common desire on both sides not to get into the backstop, and certainly for it not to become a permanent feature and i think a lot of colleagues have been concerned round the question as to whether we would get out of the backstop, and asi would get out of the backstop, and as i say, there are three tiers of safeguards to avoid that happening. so it is your view that the best endeavours clause and the fact that you belief that both sides would be heavily incentivised to avoid going into the backstop is enough to make collea g u es into the backstop is enough to make colleagues in the house swallow what

i think you would admit is an uncomfortable wording of the way the eu can veto us leaving.” uncomfortable wording of the way the eu can veto us leaving. i think we need to make the case. it is quite a complicated area of law. i think the legal wiring between the withdrawal agreement, and the political declaration takes some unravelling, andi declaration takes some unravelling, and i think sometimes people reacted very quickly, to the withdrawal agreement and actually as, and i think there is a good opportunity with the attorney general today, as one getses a clearer picture of that legal wiring, one gets a better understanding of the obligations, it places on to the eu. i simply point out for example, some colleagues we re out for example, some colleagues were concerned when the prime minister in thejoint were concerned when the prime minister in the joint report in december made the commitment on to, of the backstop, because they said it was binding. well, the same applies in terms of political declaration, it might not be legally binding but politically it would be

very difficult for the european on your to row back from the commitments they have given and part of the reason i think the negotiation mr robinson is being difficult is because the european union take that language seriously, if it wasn‘t meaningful, they perhaps would have been more relaxed as to what went in the text. i think the reason that has been so hard fought is because it is an negotiating instruction to both sides and therefore will have a significant impact in shaping the phase two discussion, but i absolutely accept that a lot of colleagues, across the house have been concerned in terms of the ability to come out the backstop and thatis ability to come out the backstop and that is something we need to explain. thank you. can i ask therefore to mr robins, the times recently reported that you and your tea m recently reported that you and your team had drafted a termination clause for the backstop, which included the specific unilateral mechanism that would allow the uk to

quit the backstop if it so desired. were those reports correct? ministers asked us to look at options for how to bring the backstop options for how to bring the ba cksto p to options for how to bring the backstop to an end so we did, and the prime minister and other ministers tested some of those out on european partners, but the what we went into the negotiation with in the end was a text that delivered the end was a text that delivered the termination clause as it is laid out there. did the text of the termination clause that the times reported on, did that ever go to cabinet for consideration?” reported on, did that ever go to cabinet for consideration? i don't think, if i may say so i think it should allow myself to be governed by the normal convention, i can certainly assure you as i hope the secretary of state will back me up is that ministers have had advice on the full range of options and what was tabled was a ministerial decision. you said it was tested on european counterparts so we can infer they pushed back strongly on

that, that draft of the termination clause with a unilateral mechanism. i think what has been clear is there can‘t be a deal without a backstop, which ever, and we may come on to the other deals colleagues have been exploring, a clear narrative. i have only been at two cabinets, i wouldn‘t have been at the cabinet where that may or may not have been discussed, the point what has always been clear is that which ever deal is entered into, there will need to bea is entered into, there will need to be a backstop, so whether it is canada, whether it is norway, whether it is ea plus, the options that have been floated they would a lwa ys that have been floated they would always need a backstop. when the deal gets voted down a week tomorrow, will you be advising the prime minister to resurrect mr bin‘s d raft prime minister to resurrect mr bin‘s draft termination clause with the unilateral mechanism to take to summit to ask eu leaders to oh

re—open the text of the withdrawal agreement and insert such a termination clause? firstly it is government‘s intention to win that vote, that is what we are focussing on, you would expect me to say that mrcrab, but on, you would expect me to say that mr crab, but that is the case, and i think as minds are focussed on the uncertainty, of the alternatives and we may get into a wider discussion of those uncertainties, and whether those other options would themselves command a majority of the house, thenit command a majority of the house, then it is very clear that the only deal is the prime minister‘s deal, yes there‘s some compromises in that, that is the reflection of a ha rd that, that is the reflection of a hard fought negotiation, but that is the deal, hand is the deal we need to secure. thank you very much. thank you. emma reynolds. if the uk and the eu do enter into the backstop, can you confirm that under the withdrawal agreement, that the uk government cannot unilaterally withdraw from the backstop and

actually that decision would have to be taken by the joint committee as referred to in the withdrawal agreement which is made up of representatives of each side. you are correct it would be a question for the joint are correct it would be a question for thejoint committee are correct it would be a question for the joint committee and the arbitration process, and than is a normal approach, the point about thatis normal approach, the point about that is again, the idea that the eu has some sort of veto on that process , has some sort of veto on that process, is not correct, because the requirement in terms of both sides, to act in good faith, going through that, and any interpretations of law, because a question that has been raised is what would the role of the european courts be, in that process , of the european courts be, in that process, the role of the courts is not to determine the role of the courts is simply in terms of any interpretation of eu law, so the role testify courts is regarding the factual position what is the interpretation of the law not determining the case, so would be for the joint determining the case, so would be for thejoint committee, determining the case, so would be for the joint committee, the arbitration process and there are

requirements in terms of acting in good faith, as to how that would need to be conducted.” good faith, as to how that would need to be conducted. i understand what you are saying, but so it is the case that the uk government count withdraw from backstop union hatry, that is the case? because it is an insurance, the whole nature of the backstop is it is an insurance but as we have covered, there is strong insin tests, firstly to avoid going into the backstop but secondly, as to why from an eu perspective they themselves would not want the stay. if indeed you look at the comments that president macron raised the other day, the point about them relating to fishing is on day one, the eu would lose access under the backstop, that would be a difficult conversation i am sure for eu leaders to have with their own fleet, that is a further indication of their desire not to remain in the backstop, and indeed the political declaration replates that because it gives a clear

timetable in part five, to incentivise those discussions. i hear what you are saying, but the factor going in the other direction is obviously that the need to avoid a hard border on the island of ireland, and my question really is, the backstop, it could become quite long—term, if the eu and the uk cannot find a solution to that problem. if you cannot come to an agreement, that avoids that hard border, then the backstop will remain in place. i don't think so, because, but it... what is the point of the backstop then? it is a key issue and one a number of people have been concerned about. firstly it would be difficult from a european perspective, if there was any suggestion of permanence, not least because article 50 doesn‘t allow a permanent relationship. so the very nature of that would open up the very nature of that would open up litigation risk for firms the very nature of that would open up litigation risk forfirms in the very nature of that would open up litigation risk for firms in the eu 27 who would feel that northern

ireland business, in having the best of both worlds would have a trade advantage compared to firms in the eu 27. it might be the case this committee would take the view that the willingness of the european courts to react to her majesty‘s government would be limited, but what i think is much more reasonable to conclude, is that, the european courts would react to for example a french firm that faced that felt it had a trade disadvantage compared to a firm that was able to be access the single market, without paying, without the uk paying any lump sum in terms of fees, without being subject to the full freedoms in terms of free. develop o move. if one looks at the media report, some in europe have criticised the backstop. i know it seems odd in context, but some in europe have criticised the backstop because they feel that mr robins has got an

advantage in the negotiation and the prime minister has an advantage because it gives access to market without the financial contribution and without free movement. that is another reason why it is not an advantagejust position another reason why it is not an advantage just position for the eu. let us be clear about that. there could be friction, we have taken evidence on this, between the uk and the eu, and mr robins has conceded this is the case depending on regulatory equivalence, but the situation with regard to northern ireland, and the rest of the eu, is different to that with regard to the uk and the eu, isn‘t that the case under the backstop? so what you are talking about is access for the northern irish economy to the uk not the whole of the uk. if you take animals for example. there is five million flown across the northern irish border as it is. if you look a

the moment between the gb and northern ireland border there is round 30 checks particularly round animals, at the moment, so there are already existing issues there. so, some of these points are already in place. sorry, one last question but on the future relationship. mr robins you were there in salzburg as i understand it. given the response from eu leaders at salzburg, particularly to the economic proposals, in the chequers plan, to what extent do the economic proposals in the chequers plan still constitute the uk‘s negotiating position on the future relationship? the response being negative, just to be clear. thank you. firstly, of course, the response to the white paper at salzburg and before and after it has not been as wholly negative as some have portrayed it. including on the economic side, and

i think if we had time to go through the whole declaration there are many aspects of of or proposals are welcomed. it is for the secretary of state to speak for the government‘s policy as we enter into the next phase but what i can say with confidence is the position the government took in the white paper, this declaration allows us to continue to argue for that in areas we have not nailed it down yet. and cani we have not nailed it down yet. and can i ask why, given that is totally uncertain, i mean, i, iam just echoing what the chair said, thank you and your colleagues and the civil service for all the work you have put into these many documents, i know you have been hard at it for year, not weeks or month, it is the case that the political declaration is not legally binding so it is still unclear whether our future economic relationship will look at the eu‘s economic

relationship with canada —— canada or norway, that is not clear because the negotiations have onlyjust begun, is that the so just sojust one thing so just one thing i think the secretary of state has aurally mentioned but let me amplify a bit. it is not a legally binding document, the political declaration, but it is extremely unusual, unprecedented i think it might very and is fora unprecedented i think it might very and is for a political declaration like this to be explicitly referred to in an international treaty. article 184, it is the one that specifies the declaration dated, as this declaration is, is the basis for the negotiations to proceed. the secretary of state was saying earlier that is not just secretary of state was saying earlier that is notjust a moral moment and a political commitment but actually a failure to proceed in good faith with the