fuelling climate change. scientists say altering our diets to become more plant—based could dramatically reduce emissions — with one quarter of greenhouse gases coming from food production. us immigration officials have released about half of nearly 700 people detained in a huge raid in the state of mississippi. human rights campaigners are urging the state to now set them all free. stories of children being separated from their parents had sparked condemnation. india's prime minister has defended his decision to revoke kashmir‘s special status. in an address to the nation narendra modi said a new era has begun, and the region will be freed from terrorism and separatism. now on bbc news, hardtalk.

welcome to hardtalk, i'm stephen sackur. the british government's brexit strategy can be summed up in new prime minister boris johnson's three—word phrase — "do or die". the uk is leaving on october the 31st, he says, "deal or no—deal". right now, a deal between london and brussels appears unlikely, so what about the alternative? well, my guest is iain duncan smith, former conservative party leader and ardent brexiteer. can prime ministerjohnson deliver a no—deal exit and what will it mean for britain's politics and economy?

iain duncan smith, welcome to hardtalk. thank you. if i may, let me begin by quoting to you the words of an european union official in brussels uttered just a couple of days ago. "a no—deal exit now appears to be the uk government's central scenario." would you agree with that? in the sense that the government's made it clear they think the existing withdrawal agreement is dead, unless there is major surgery to it, and the government has set out the starting point, which is the end of the backstop, then they're not prepared to discuss it. now, i suspect that they're open to other discussions, but that is certainly not the discussion. so what he's saying is essentially yes, that's the position

where in, we prepare for no—deal and find out what's going to happen with the european union. it's up to them really. you must be delighted? well, i've always wanted a relationship with the european union but i've always said the only way you can do this is to deliver on the referendum, which is to leave, so to that extent you have to decide you're leaving come what may. so right now then, i suppose if we're blunt about it, we're in the process of some kind of weird blame game with boris johnson and key ministers saying they'll only talk to brussels, only negotiate, if brussels accepts the withdrawal agreement, and, of course, the backstop within it, are completely dead. and they know that brussels can never accept that, so essentially they're trying to pile the blame on brussels for the complete failure of any negotiation. well, actually the failure of the negotiation goes back a long way. it goes back to the way theresa may and her government approached this negotiation. i don't blame the european union, by the way, i'm one of those

who always says if i was them i would have behaved in almost pretty much the same way. they do a lot of trade deals, they know exactly how to operate in a trade deal. they treat you immediately as a third country. they did that, and they're always very aggressive, that's what they do. my problem was the british government seemed to think they were talking to friends. they're not friends because we're leaving the european union, so they behaved in a way that they thought... the british government spent this whole time trying to find ways to satisfy the concerns of the european union, which was manna from heaven for them, and the result is the deal we've now, which beneficial to the european union dramatically, but not beneficial to the uk at all. but why won't boris johnson be straight with the british people? why does he still say... at least he said a few weeks ago, the chances of a no—deal exit are a million—to—one against. that is patently nonsense. depends what you mean by deal and a no—deal and this is too simplistic. what we have is a withdrawal agreement, an all—encompassing

process that has payments we are meant to make, £39 billion to them, but it has a implementation period, where we would stay in for maybe two or three years, and accept the rule of the court ofjustice, and the backstop would mean northern ireland would have to remain pretty much in the customs union and mostly in the single market. so that's the withdrawal agreement, which we are saying no, that is dead. but in the meantime, they have prepared for not having the withdrawal agreement and so are we. so what does that entail? it means there are between 17 and 30 what they call mini—deals. these are deals that all about planes landing, aviation safety, transport... they're not deals. well, they are, because they're all the elements about functionality that are deals so when borisjohnson talked about million—to—one, the answer is there's lots of deals to be done, they aren't the overarching deal but are elements of functionality. the idea we're leaving the eu with absoultely no functionality is nonsense.

you can dress it up anywhere you like, you can call it no—deal, hard brexit, you can call it what you like, but the fact is, the conservative party, for generations has prided itself on being the party of business, of sound money, of fiscal responsibility. if there's a no—deal brexit, which you appear now to accept is highly likely, that reputation is going to be shredded. well, let's place what comes in front of everything else, which is that we asked the british people and told them at the same time their decision is binding, whether or not they wanted to stay in or leave the european union, and my view at the end of it all is democracy trumps everything else so we have to get on with it. whether one likes it or not, the reality is they voted to leave, so we have to leave. the question really is... but with respect, you didn't tell them that would involve abandoning notions like sound money, a strong pound, fiscal responsibility, being a party that actually listened to business,

all of that has been junked. you didn't actually tell them that. no, because most of that is complete nonsense, with respect. the reality for us is that all of these things are transitory. what's already happened since we left is the pound fell. actually my view is it was overvalued anyway, so that's meant our exports are boosted, and finally enough what's really putting pressure on the european union at the moment in a monetary sense is there economy is teetering on the edge of recession. germany's in trouble — a three—day working week in some of their manufacturing sectors — but what they have seen a de facto 12% tariff on their goods because the pound fell by i2%. that means if they have tariffs after that, they have tariffs on top of the fall. already their competitiveness in the uk has fallen. so when we look at this carefully, what we're saying is these things move around, floating currencies move, they adjust in accordance with each other, and the key element that needs to be decided, and i've talked to businesses and the vast majority say they're not worried about this any longer and they've made the progress.

i don't know what businesses you talk to. i talk to banks, i talk to industry, i talk to farmers. you've talked about the currency issue and we see a weaker pound but it's notjust about the weak currency, to quote mark carney, the governor of the bank of england, you're not a fan of his but he is the governor of the bank of england, he says, "in the event of no—deal, and a no—transition brexit, sterling is going to fall and risk premiums on uk assets will rise and volatility is going to spike higher." if we're talking about honesty, why don't you come clean with the british public and say, "yes, all of that is true and we're prepared to accept very, very high price for this brexit of ours." i don't believe the price is high. what i say to those who forecast the worst cases is they may come about but then again they may not come about. let's take most of their previous forecasts, almost every single previous forecast by the bank of england has been wrong. they forecast directly after we even voted for brexit that unemployment would rise by 500,000, but instead employment

has gone up by nearly 1.5 million. they said we would have an immediate stock market crash but the stock market hasn't crashed. all these various things have been thrown at us again and again and again. many of their models are quite incorrect. i don't doubt there may be adjustments taking place straight after if we leave without any particular withdrawal agreement with the eu, but i believe very quickly indeed that will all rectify and stabilise itself. frankly you question the competence it seems of the governor of the bank of england, but i can't imagine you question the competence of your own government and its officials. i do. you do? so when you have officials working on no—deal brexit... i question the treasury... let me just finish this. almost all the main forecasters have been fundamentally wrong through this process. these are all the same bodies that fail to spot the crash in 2008. every one of them — the treasury, the bank of england, the imf, all of them didn't get it.

they all forecast exactly the same, with or without margins, about terrible problems after the vote and they were wrong. i have a very simple view about this, they don't know the future any more than you do or i do. the £2 billion currently being spent on no deal preparation is being handled by officials you have no faith in, i guess. i'm talking about forecasting. those very officials have talked about, for example, the real dangers within the education department. we've seen the leaked e—mails, warehousing and stockpiling capacity they say will be limited and "this department has limited levers to address the risks, and we are heavily dependent on the actions of major suppliers and other departments to ensure continued provision of food for schools." this is the kind of planning that's now happening. are you saying these officials are are fearmongering and incompetent? what i'm saying is be very careful when you plan for these things you understand what's going to happen, not what you think will absolutely happen in a worst case, and i'll give you an example.

the other day i went to a presentation by the contingency executive, all right, and they were to tell us all these things about where they had set their requirements and what they thought was going to go wrong. they told us they planned for enormous hold—ups at calais which would backlog traffic in dover all the way up, so all of these great plans for stack—backs would happen, because this would slow down fresh food coming across and cause major problems. i asked them a simple question, i said, "in all your contingency planning, did you bother to talk to the calais port authority? did you speak to the president of the pas—de—nord? because they have come out before that and said number one, there will be no delays at calais. why? because they will let literally everything through that went through before. if they have to stop anything, it goes back a0 kilometres to an inspection point, which they are now completing, that inspection point is based on what happens at rotterdam on a daily basis. the time limits and the delays at calais are now absolutely being refuted by the french authorities themselves.

and if they aren't being delayed... with respect, it's not just about what happens at calais, it's about what happens at dover as well. the dover authority has also said... ijust wonder... can i finish this? the dover authority has also said, which they took no account of, that they will not stop anything coming into the uk that would have passed through previously, and any inspections will be done well away from the port and they'll prioritise things like fresh food. so with all that going on, you have to ask yourself a question about government. are we in the business of frightening people or are we in the business of actually trying to get this right? so many different officials and experts predicting a much, much more painful no—deal brexit than you appear ready to countenance, but let's park that for a moment and talk about the looming constitutional crisis the united kingdom faces. there are many senior figures inside your party, including very recent former ministers, including philip hammond, the chancellor of the exchequer, david gauke, who was justice secretary, and former prime minister, john major, who was sitting in that

chair a short time ago, all adamant that they can and they will block a no—deal brexit. how are you going to make sure they're wrong? well, it's up to them what they want to do. i don't see what the mechanisms are, but parliament is parliament and they'll have to make their decisions of what they want to do. right now, the default position is that it is law we will leave on the 31st of october whatever. by the way, that's under european law, so unless we ask for an extension, we have to leave under european law, which we are governed by, by the way, until 11pm on the 31st of october. so parliament can do what it likes, but the key issue is even if parliament were to try to change the date, european law, unless we ask for an extension and are granted one, we leave at the end of the article 50 process. assuming... you seem to know

borisjohnson will be the prime minister througout that period, but it is of course possible the prime minister will be replaced and there may be a vote of confidence in early september and he may lose it. he may lose it, and in which case under the fixed—term parliaments act, as lord sumption said at the other day — quite rightly, by the way — under the fixed—term parliaments act, you have 14 days in which somebody else, a party, has to command a majority in the house, otherwise it's accepted under that act that the existing government continues until another government is formed. hang on, let's go through this piece by piece. i was going to walk you through what the act says. yeah, but there's a phase you've missed out, if i may, that is — would borisjohnson resign if he lost a vote of confidence? lord sumption was clear about this, there is no requirement for the government to resign, because that's what you'd be having if the prime minister resigned. but there is precedent. no, no, no, no. we've never had this before under the fixed—term parliaments act. 0k, under the fixed—term parliaments act, but listen to these words — it seems the tory party is in danger

of ripping itself apart. here are the words of another esteemed colleague of yours, sir malcolm rifkind, "if the prime minister refused to accept the normal consequence of losing a confidence vote. if he sought to prevent both parliament and the electorate having a final say on no—deal, he would create the gravest constitutional crisis since the actions of charles i led to the civil war." lot of nonsense! what dear old malcolm is busy doing is talking about what used to happen in the old days. before the fixed—term parliaments act, you had a vote of confidence and if you lost the vote of confidence you had to resign and there was a general election. that was the precedent! what has happened since the formulation of this fixed—term parliaments act is it's very clear, it's a very different process. what it's meant to do is allow for a process for another government to be formed. so if you have a vote of confidence and lose the vote of confidence, the government stays until another government can be formed. if another government cannot be formed, then 14 days later the prime minister has to call an election within reasonable time.

that is the process. it is not as it was. malcolm rifkind, i'm afraid, is guilty of looking at what used to happen and not what happens now. that is the constitutional position. i have to tell you, lord sumption, no small beer on the idea of the constitution, said categorically the other day... two or three days ago, that this is the process, this is what will happen and the government does not have to resign until either the election or that other government is formed. coming back to this notion of the conservative party tearing itself apart, whatever happens over the next few days and weeks, it seems to me like the party cannot continue to include people such as yourself on one side, and those like dominic grieve, ken clarke, philip hammond on the other, who feel that no—deal brexit would be a complete betrayal of the interests of the british people. what is going to happen to your party?

well, what's going to happen to all parties? the labour party is quite divided over this issue. but let's focus on your party. i'm simply making a point. your always focus on the conservative party. the reality is, politics in the public are divided on this issue. we just have to recognise that. but what we have to do is recognise the overarching priority is to deliver on the democratic vote of the british people. 17.4 million people, the largest number ever to vote in a british election, voted to leave the european union. so that is our number one priority. let me stop you there. interesting — "number one priority." isn't that another way of saying, "we are no longer a conservative party. we are the brexit party"? no, we have always been the conservative party but we also are the party that gave the british people... you are the brexit party, and part of your strategy, and dominic cummings who of course is the most important adviser to borisjohnson, his strategy is to ensure that by becoming the brexit party, you neutralise

the threat of nigel farage and his brexit party. that's what this is about. no, we're the conservative party, but we happen to believe in delivering on what we promised the british people, which is their decision, was binding on a british government. the problem we've got at the moment is, the british public that as a majority, but the majority in parliament is in fact mostly for remain. so this is where the parliament now is creating a constitutional crisis at being completely at odds with the british public on a major constitutional issue. so the answer to that is, we draw our authority not from parliament. we draw it from the british people who loan to parliament for a period of that governance, then we hand it back for an election and ask them again for that authority. we gave them the authority when we gave them the referendum. parliament now must act on that. so in theory, parliament should be the brexit parliament. it shouldn't be just the conservative party arguing for this, because there are many labour mps who now recognise that if we don't deliver on brexit... as you're well aware, we live in a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. no, no, no, no, we do... well that's the truth, isn't it?

but stephen, it is very important. when parliament votes overwhelmingly to hand the decision to the british people, it votes again to endorse it, overwhelmingly, it votes overwhelmingly to trigger article 50, which is explicit that within two years you must leave the european union, then we must deliver on that. that's constitutionally the case. you're reminding me with your passion that we had a former tory prime minister, john major, in that chairjust the other day, banging on the table, making points entirely and absolutely contradictory to the once you are making. but he doesn't believe in... he doesn't feel himself bound by this referendum. let me, in that spirit of wondering what on earth is happening inside your party, and indeed what is going to happen to the divisions in the country, let us consider together what happens on i november. what happens to britain the day after brexit? i think we have to assume for the time being it is going to be a no—deal brexit. the problem is that, oni november, the uk still will be in a protracted brexit crisis, because it will need

to go back to the eu, argue for a comprehensive trade deal, trade agreement, and it won't get it unless it makes the concessions the eu demands, which will include some form of backstop in ireland, and which will include the payment of the £39 billion divorce bill. in which case we won't do a free trade deal with them, and guess who's damaged by that? the eu is. the uk. yes, but the eu is disproportionately damaged. you know, i know a lot of politicians in different countries and i know very well, there was a very interesting man the other day, herr 0tto henkel, who's just retired as an mep, he is a german mep, and he made a really interesting speech in the european parliament. and he said to them, you know, the uk leaving the european union is notjust some small country, he said. for us, it's the equivalent of 19 or 20 of the smallest countries in europe — there's only 27, remember, left after us, 19 or 20 of those, two—thirds, leaving the european union at once. he said the damage to the european union economically,

unless we resolve this now, will be dramatic, and also psychologically, he said the blame lies with the commission, for failing to recognise that they need to do this. my point here is that if we were to leave without an arrangement, because the european union decided they did not want to make an arrangement on any terms other than those they've got at the moment, then they also must take the consequences of what happens next. what happens next is the loss of their markets... you need to face the consequences too. my argument — there is another way of doing this. hang on, i want tojust fix on the consequences, for you, your conservative party, and for prime minister boris johnson. he's already made a whole host of promises about how much money he's going to spend post—brexit on tax cuts, mainly for the wealthy, but also he wants new police,

20,000 of them, he wants new infrastructure, new railways. he is splashing the cash in his head. the truth is, as the former chancellor philip hammond has pointed out, and office for budget responsibility, there will be no cash to spend in the context of a no—deal brexit. so you're tying the hands, with this no—deal brexit, of your own conservative government. no, i don't believe that to be the case, for two reasons. first of all, i think it is wholly in the interest of the european union, after we leave, immediately after we leave, which is to immediately strike a basic trade deal. my goodness, you are a man of faith, aren't you? i've been to see mr barnier, and i've negotiated with him twice, separate to the government. i have some idea of where they are, and the truth is, right now they won't move, if they do move it would astonish me, before we leave. what'll happen directly afterwards is, they have to make some kind of arrangement with the united kingdom, and everything else, will be demanding that they reach some kind of trade arrangement with us and they do

it rather quickly. so the wto will allow for this in the arrangements, post a breakup, between two big parties like this. they allow for a period of stasis were you your arrangements out. you have a remarkable confidence about the post—brexit british economy. what about the post—brexit state of the union? your own conservative party leader in scotland, ruth davidson, says a no—deal brexit would be a disaster. the latest opinion polls, since borisjohnson came to power, shows that the majority of scots now want independence. you, the conservative, unionist party, are about to destroy the union. the thing that has been destroying beginning in getting close to it is the membership of the european union. time after time after time. small nations and unions like this have used the european union as a way of separating from the union. scotland has been attracted by the idea of the opinion was not to scare up and votes for independence? of course i care. do you care if the

union is dismantled? of course i care. they exist for only one thing. they don't run scotland. they exist for only one thing, which is to separate from the united kingdom. the united kingdom is their major marketplace and there are more scots around london then they are in scotland, we are bound together of 300 years, of course i care about that but i also don't believe you solve a problem like that by running scared from the very people that wish to break up the union. we're almost out of time, but a final thought. you exhibited a remarkable amount of confidence about britain and your party speech throughout this interview. do you ever may they did not, think yourself, my gosh, what if i'm wrong? what if brexit is actually a hugely damaging event for the night again? then i wouldn't be sitting here and saying what i said if i doubted for one moment that the uk is capable not only of leaving the european union well, but at the end of the day, i believe uk is the most flexible economy on the planet. all the various economies, or method very clear, they come top of the league. universities, four of the top

universities out of the top ten. no other european university gets to the top ten. we are ready. what we want to make sure is that the interim period after is managed. i have no doubt the united kingdom is a remarkable place, that will bounce straight back pretty quickly. iain duncan smith, we have to end there. thank you for being on hardtalk. hello there. it was 27 degrees on thursday in suffolk. felt a bit more like summer, but the weather's changing now. the next few days look very different. not only will there be some rain, which is going to be heavy at times, it's the strength of the wind that's going to be more significant, and bring more impacts.

now, we don't normally see a satellite picture looking like this at this time of the year. but this curl of cloud marks the position of an unusually deep area of low pressure for august, hence the strength of the wind. it's a lot further south than we'd expect, as well, and it's pushing these weather fronts northwards and eastwards, and bringing some rain as well, which could be heavy at times. as we head into the morning, northern scotland still generally dry — just one or two showers, a cooler feel here. but a wet start to the day across central, southern scotland

for the rush hour. that rain is going to be quite heavy. further west, though, wales and the south—west dry at this stage, and quite sunny as well, and quite a warm and muggy start across england and wales, too. rain should clear away in the morning from eastern england, rain band marching northwards into northern scotland, showers develop out across western parts of the uk. heavy, thundery, gusty winds. gusts in the south—west later on in the afternoon, winds really start to pick up. quite warm, though, for eastern parts of england, where it's going to be driest of all in the afternoon. highs mid—20s. low pressure is continuing to push its way northwards, and the winds continue to strengthen during the evening, overnight and into saturday. the low pressure is focusing the wettest weather in the northern half of the uk, with showers or longer spells of rain for scotland, northern ireland, perhaps the far north of england, risk of thunder. south, the showers that come in will be more fleeting. there'll be lengthy spells of sunshine, and that's because it's going to be very windy for england and wales. widespread gales, and we'll be looking at gusts of 60 mph around some southern coasts of england and wales. and because of that, it's going to feel somewhat cooler and fresher, with typical temperatures into the low 20s. for the second half of the weekend, our low pressure starts to push

away to scandinavia. it won't be as windy on sunday, but we've still got these weather fronts on the scene, focusing the showers into longer spells of rain, and that wetter weather will drift its way further south into england and wales. it will start to change the wind direction. it'll be breezy, but nowhere near as windy on sunday. but we're pulling down a northerly wind. it's drawing down cooler air, particularly in the north, with highs of 15 or 16 celsius.

welcome to bbc news, i'm duncan golestani. our top stories: eat less meat to help save the planet — a major un report says that altering our diets could help slow down global warming. the choice between broccoli and ribs on your plate actually has a real link to the level of global warming that we are likely to see. us immigration officials release half of the workers detained in a huge raid, in the state of mississippi. campaigners say they should all be freed. india's prime minister says he revoked kashmir‘s autonomy to free it from terrorism and separatism. italy moves closer to a snap election, after coalition leaders warn the governing alliance is beyond repair.