this is bbc news. the headlines: the former colombian rebel, gustavo petro, has become the country's first left—wing president after winning a second round vote. mr petro won 50.5% of the vote compared to 47% for his right—wing anti—establishment opponent, rodolfo hernandez. mr hernandez wished the new government good luck. the international swimming federation, fina, has voted to restrict the participation of transgender athletes in elite women's events. from now on, transgender swimmers are required to have completed their transition by the age of twelve. supporters of the trans community say the decision is unfair. france's president emmanuel macron has suffered a major political setback after his centrist coalition lost its parliamentary majority.

his coalition, "ensemble", lost around a hundred seats, with major gains for both marine le pen�*s far—right party and a new alliance led by far—left leaderjean—luc melenchon. now on bbc news, it's time for dateline london, with sean ley. hello and welcome to the programme which brings together leading uk commentators with the foreign correspondents who write, blog and broadcast to audiences in their own countries from the dateline london. this week, what does international law amount to? on tuesday, judges in british courts decided it was permissible to fly would—be asylum seekers to rwanda in east africa because, if the policy is subsequently ruled unlawful, the british government can be relied

upon to bring them back again. it was a judge on the european court of human rights whose intervention prevented the flight taking off at all. a day later, lord geidt became the second independent ethics adviser in succession to the prime minister to resign. the government was considering paying subsidies to steel manufacturers in the uk in breach of the rules of the world trade organization. the code says ministers should not break the law. downing street was considering suspending it and asked for his advice. for lord geidt, this was the last straw. on friday, borisjohnson escaped these domestic distractions to spend the day in kyiv. he is one of the allies of ukraine championing international law as a tool to bring to account nations for actions taken during the invasion. this week, investigators from the un human rights council said they may have found evidence of serious breaches of international law, which perhaps amount to war crimes. but will this part of international law ever be enforced 7 we will discuss those three aspects.

in the studio, ian birrell, who writes for the mail on sunday and is freshly returned from a lengthy spell in the donbas region of ukraine. latika bourke is a columnist for the age of melbourne and the sydney morning herald. she has spent much of a month stomping through australia covering the election campaign there. and jeffrey kofman has been a news anchor in both his native canada and the united states as a war correspondent. thank you all for coming, good to see you. a bit of a relief from the hot temperatures outside in london as we record this programme. jeffrey, let's begin with rwanda. tell us what happened to what britain says is a ground—breaking, revolutionary new asylum policy, sending asylum seekers who want to come and live in the uk to rwanda instead. i tell you what did not happen, europe did not meddle in british law. that's what borisjohnson and his supporters want us to believe, that this is another european incursion. that is not what happened. a couple of observations here. one, they tried to send asylum seekers to rwanda to deter them

from coming across the camera, to say, not worth it, stay in france, stay in the continent. they knew it wasn't legal. they are pushing this... this is about protecting britain, the same rhetoric as brexit, and they are simply doing it for posturing, flight ready to go, half an hour before, the european human rights court said no, you can't do it. that is not the european union. winston churchill was a signatory to this, i think it was 1959. 46 nations, much larger than the european union, completely separate. it's the european council that planned this, it came out of the ashes of the second world war as a court to defend human rights. that might confuse people, you said the european council. the european council is the body that runs... you mean the council of europe? council of europe. sorry... no, no, iam corrected. thank you for saying that.

but the point being, only two countries has been expelled or have left the european human rights court. that was russia and greece when it was under a dictatorship. borisjohnson is saying, well, maybe we shouldn't be part of it either. this is posturing for the election. but let's be clear. you talk about this country and the rule of law, setting an example and how do we talk about russia and human rights incursions, etc... there is a class in this country, and i say this as somebody who has lived here for 12 years, that thinks it is entitled to do as it wishes and ignore the law. we saw this with partygate. now we are seeing it again. that we don't have to follow human rights law, we can do it on our own. that is a consistent theme in this government. i want to pick up on that, in truth, international human rights law is kind of voluntary. people have chosen to adopt this.

but because there is no sanction and no actual enforcement, it is something we have chosen to follow, we are not obliged. it is not part of our system. of course, but the court was saying they are waiting until there has been a judicial review, and the judicial process in the uk is finished. they were saying, go to your own system and we can take it from there. butjeffrey is right, the government have had a success out of this, they had what they wanted, they wanted to start a fuss, they wanted to cause a smoke screen. the reality is they have a policy, a system which is not working very well for them. 72% of people coming win their cases, another half or so win them on asylum. the number of those people being sent home or forcibly evacuated has fallen to a 20th of the peak in 2005. the government's policy is not working, they needed a smoke screen and they got exactly what they wanted, a big fuss, a big furore and a big fight. can i pick up on your point about thejudge at the european court of human rights effectively

saying, look, go back and get it tested before you try and do it, because it doesn't look lawful? in a sense, they were jumping in when you might argue domesticjudges should have acted. in other words, they were saying, hang on a minute, that is really something the britishjudges should have done. well, it's going to be tested in a court of law in the uk, but of course, again, one of the themes with borisjohnson and priti patel, the home secretary, is to be able to blame lefty lawyers, who they attack, and this gives them another excuse to blame the lefty lawyers for stopping them doing what they want. the whole thing is a ridiculous smoke screen. if they want to tackle the asylum, they can do so, as france suggested, they could process on french soil, they could have a more effective system in the uk. we desperately need an efficient asylum system, and we don't have it. instead we get these ridiculous stunts. latika, 28,526 people made it to britain last year on this

route, 45 people either went missing or died attempting to do so. so you can see statistically why people might carry on coming, although it is very dangerous water, one of the most crowded waterways in the world, actually the risk to life is proportionally relatively low. terrible what happened to that a5, but proportionally it's quite a low figure. australia had exactly this problem of offshoring. it tried to offshore, and australia, it seemed to work. well, if you look to australia, this is playing out perfectly. for the british conservatives here, because this issue - dominated at least three or four elections. - and it's now the case - in australia, it's lethal to go to an election saying - you would unwind the border protection policies. you would not win government. and the long saga of this has been drawn out over the last| two decades in australia. we had what was called the pacific solution. - asylum seekers who came - by boat, only those who came

by boat, from indonesia, - they would be sent to detention centres, first on shore, . but then under the pacific solution, detention centres - on nauru and papua new guinea. now that did pretty much stop, slow the boat to minimal- numbers, not completely. in 2007, the labor party went| to the election and won saying we are going to unwind thisl inhumane, immoral system. and they did. and the boats came back with ferocity. i and this arguably killed i their re—election chances two elections later. because when the boatsj came back with ferocity, we had this spectacle i of people dying at sea. and the courts... the labor government came up with its own refugee swap plan| with malaysia, in 2013, - but the high court knocked it down. but that enabled the - conservative government in australia, when it won . power, to essentially rip up all international law.

international law in- australia is not adhered to. and they then began to turnj back the boats, to tow them back to indonesia. they put them in orangel lifeboats and said, it's up to you if you get back safely. they would be given enough fuel to make it to indonesia. - so that's ultimately in australia's case i what stopped the boats. so in the end, international law didn't count for anything because they were signatories to all these conventions but they decided, for their domestic political reasons, that was going to be... but it's fair to say, as you said, the policy worked in its own terms. absolutely. it stopped people coming, it made it so unpleasant, the chances of ever getting to australia... i think this is an - important distinction. deterrence didn't - completely stop boats. there is lots of research i and statistics to show this, because even after labor. unwound the pacific solution then tried to reinstate it, that still never - stopped the boats. it was messaging and campaigns in all these areas to tell - people not to come on a boat, you won't get to australia, - you could die. it didn't stop them. i don't think the parallel can

hold for a number of reasons. a key point, people in this country are not talking about asylum seekers as an invasion of their shores, as they were before the exit. he is full armada, - that is what they would call him in australia... this is not a prominent issue right now in this country. there are so many other issues... i strongly disagree with that. i think borisjohnson is desperately looking for issues to polarise people and galvanise his base. one of the critical issues. about why boris johnson's leadership was destabilised was red wall mps acting - on this issue. because in their electorates, there are hotels filled - with asylum seekers that are not being processed. j quite often they've been transferred from the south—east up the country. and they are there for months. this is more an issue - of home office processing at this point, because people are living in hotels. - but what that means is there . is a lot of community backlash. the australian lesson. on the populist politics of this shows that, for as long

as this goes on like this, - the conservatives will win this argument. i and you will note that i labor here is not saying, hey, we are not. going to reverse... i still don't think this is a one issue country in the same way. there is another issue, which is that, at a time when we are fighting a war against a dictatorship, we are outsourcing refugees to the most overcrowded country in africa, to a dictatorship — someone who came to power as president in the same year as putin, a former spy chief like putin, who has a track record of invading other countries, like putin, who has a track record of ripping off assets from other countries, like putin, a track record of repression and stifling free expression, eliminating rivals... all these things, the hypocrisy is utterly grotesque. the idea we are doing this deal with a dictatorship like rwanda, it sticks in my throat. the other thing to warn l about here, australia has a huge cultural- anxiety with border. it would be a real shame i to see the united kingdom, an open, progressive society,

move down that route. - during the pandemic, australia locked out its citizens - and no—one cared. this was because it was a direct transposition . of the politics that had - played out against others, refugees, anyone outside - the country, and that has now morphed into a treatmentl of anyone who is offshore. that would be really, - really sad and tragic to see britain follow that. the issue here is complicated. asylum seekers are meant to claim asylum in the first country they land in, which is often greece or italy. which have a much bigger problem than the uk. uk is in the luxurious position of being an island surrounded by european first world countries. in canada, the same issue. you don't get mexican refugees crossing the border into canada. these countries are insulated, so they become countries of opportunity, the uk is an english—speaking country, a prosperous capitalist economy, and ultimately an easier place to blend in if you are from...

particularly without an identity card system. on the streets of france, you might get stopped. exactly, so people will cross over. even though they could take refugee status in france, france have made it difficult, and so you have the flood coming in here. they are just very different situations, australia and the uk, and i don't think the parallel can be taken too closely. we will park this conversation here, it's one we are certainly going to come back to. let's talk about ukraine, ian. borisjohnson was there on friday, a surprise visit. on thursday, olaf scholz, his first visit to ukraine, he had been criticised for not going. macron was back there again, and mario draghi was with him from italy. on the surface, you would think everything's fine, the alliance is strong, everyone is standing by ukraine, ukraine want more weapons and they want them yesterday, but that's perfectly understandable. iwonder, though, having been in ukraine for, what, 17 weeks or something,

and having been there in 2014 when this war really began with the green men, the supposed mysterious figures who turned out to be russian special forces coming in and, it was said, destabilising the donbas region. what is your sense of this? i think we are in a pivotal moment right now. i think the war has changed shape — we all know that. it has become a lot more brutal in donbas, a lot more attritional. the russians are learning from their initial mistakes. the ukraine reaction has been incredible, it's been amazing. i have been there basically since january this year, and to see the way this country took on this existential threat from the world's second biggest army, and the whole country is basically geared towards fending off this threat, it has been phenomenal. the attitudes have really hardened. but at the same time, the media interest worldwide is beginning to dwindle, and that's frightening. putin is playing a long game and is hoping there will be cracks in the alliance. we are seeing the rhetoric slightly changing in america. yes.

and what you really — the reality is, actually, russia is still not doing that well. yes, they have made advances, the artillery bombardment is horrendous and the deaths on both sides are terrible, but actually, they still haven't taken severodonetsk which is quite a small — you know, 100,000 city. they have taken mariupol by destroying it, they have taken kherson, they have taken berdyansk but they haven't taken many urban centres. so they've taken a lot of land but not many urban centres. if they want to take donbas, they have to take much bigger cities like slovyansk and kramatorsk. and so, this is a pivotal moment where, if there is the right western support, and if the west does stay united, if macron stops saying "we can't humiliate putin" and actually, if we support the ukrainians properly with the weapons they need, then i still think something could change quite dramatically. the danger is people are bored, the attention goes elsewhere, the cost of living crisis rises, the grain situation is an issue around the world and the alliance dissipates, putin exploits that, the ukrainians, to some extent are abandoned, and even after their heroic fight against this invading power and the atrocities — and when we talk about war

crimes, the fact is it was a war crime to invade in 2014. full stop, yeah. it was a war crime to shoot down a civilian airliner, it was a war crime to take crimea, and it's a war crime to go back in again. the whole act is a war crime as well as all the individual atrocities we have seen left, right and centre. can i get a bit of clarification on geography because i'm not clear about this and i suspect a lot of people listening won't be, either. the donbas region — is that basically the area that includes both luhansk and donetsk, the two self—decla red republics? it's an eastern area, it's quite mining, heavy industry, used to be quite prosperous. the two oblasts, luhansk — which is nearly captured apart from this tiny pocket of resistance around severodonetsk — and another cityjust over the water, and then donetsk. but even in donetsk, the trenches i visited injanuary, in a place called avdiivka, which is a few miles away from donetsk, still they are fighting over this

tiny little place which they captured and were then pushed out of in 2014. they are still fighting now. the russians haven't managed to capture even that. so, it's still a war, and wars can go on a long time, but there is still a huge amount to play for which is why western support is so important to back ukraine properly, which still, really, some countries are not doing. jeffrey, on that, ian was talking about the mood starting to change — do you detect that in canada, the united states? well, i think right now, the obsession is on the january the sixth hearings in the us. if you look at the american newspapers and newscasts right now, it's all about did trump commit treason? can he go to trial, etc? it's natural — we know this as journalists and as consumers of media — that stories slip down if they start to have a sameness to them. and the shock value of this story, unfortunately, diminishes, doesn't it?

and i think, though — i completely agree with ian. this is a test of western solidarity. and having committed so much and understanding this is not really an attack on ukraine, it's an attack on europe and western values, there is no going back for the west. the west has to support ukraine. my question, and ian — i am glad you are out safely, you perhaps have a better understanding of this — it's now i think 114 days since this began. ukraine has done far better than we expected. its military is far more resilient and far more professional than people gave it credit for. but they have got to be exhausted now. do they have the reinforcements? they're also seeing staggering numbers of injuries and deaths now. do they have the depth and the manpower to actually sustain this war, even if they have the weapons given to them from the west? i think the big issue,

really, is the economics because it is easy to forget economics in this situation. i think the attitude is there, the desire is there to save their country, the support is there. it's impossible to know the personnel issues because you are not getting that — there is propaganda on both sides and we don't really know. the critical question is the economy is so shot to pieces, there is nojobs, there's no money, people are tired, the air raid sirens go through the night so you are not sleeping well in places and i think the real danger, just like the western alliance, is whether that incredible alliance that has got behind zelensky — who has performed so heroically in the way he has reacted — whether that alliance can hold within ukraine as well when people are just tired and exhausted. but at the moment — i mean, when i left, you still detect this incredible feeling that the whole country is geared towards saving themselves and supporting the people on the front line. latika, i was just going to ask you, you mentioned the economics and i wonder about the economics from the western point of view.

a lot of people are making sacrifices — nothing like the sacrifices the ukrainians are making, but a lot of people are making sacrifices. and they did it in the belief that it would accelerate the end of this war. that if russia's economy was cut off, if we were not buying the oil and gas and therefore, we were not funding the war machine, that in the end, it would force putin to negotiate or his regime would collapse and his troops would be brought home. it looks like that isn't going to happen, and i wonder at what point people in the west start to say to their politicians, "look, it was a good try. "you thought it would help. "it's clearly not making enough of a difference. "meanwhile, we are suffering really badly. "there has to be a different way." i think that is going to come sooner rather than later, . shaun, because the basic. factors in all our countries — look at the us, - australia and britain. everything is the same story — inflation soaring, cost - of living soaring, - labour shortages soaring. governments are going - to dealing with very bad hands for the next three -

to five years minimum. so, let's have this- conversation in six months when we are all cold, our energy bills are l skyrocketing, and we can't afford some of the thingsl we were affording, say, even today. . the other thing i really fear. that's happening is the media narrative like this - idea of the mighty fox against the lion when it was zelensky against putin - in the early days, and i worry in that too many minds - of the world who only checked into this story when the war . began, is they have already banked a semi sort of win l for ukraine — they think the outcome is set. - that would be fatal for us all. we in australian certainly know that this war is for all of us - because china will be veryj inspired if putin succeeds. and also, last week, of course, we saw china's — i mean, that is why it is so important, because it is a fight against dictatorship globally, and last week we saw china reiterate their support for the first time with putin, and they also seemed to change the law to allow a bit more leeway in mounting a similar

type of attack. so it's so significant what is happening in china, and that is why it is so important for everyone. and don't forget, also, i there are still significant countries that are completely — let's not say "fine" but have - not criticised putin. india — very key to this. a quad member for us in australia... - therefore, we share intelligence. canada. the same strategic interests at heart. i brazil — another really- important player that has not come out on the west's side. south africa, another. exactly. some of these gains - that we believe we have made are not as big. we have about three minutes to end to talk about lord geidt. he's the kind of figure most people would not have heard of — a former military officer, intelligence man, then he worked for the queen and was drafted in after boris johnson's last ethics adviser resigned because borisjohnson decided priti patel, the home secretary — we're all back to the same cast of characters — hadn't broken the ministerial code

when she was accused of bullying staff, for which she apologised, and therefore didn't have to resign. lord geidt has now gone and he says it was the last straw, he was being scouted. would it be all right if we suspended the ministerial code to allow us to do something at the world trade, which is not in itself interesting? he issued another letter on friday. he said, "emphasis on steel tariffs is a distraction. "it was simply one example of what might yet constitute "deliberate breaches by the uk of its obligations under "international law, given the government's widely "publicised openness to this." it's a pretty damaging verdict. it is, but i don't thinkl most people will know about lord geidt, and i think. all the damage to borisjohnson over partygate is - pretty much locked in. if you think he's a liar— and untrustworthy and should've quit, you will not change your view, regardless. of lord geidt's decision. i'm just very amused . by this british idea that you would even have an ethics adviser for a politician. - shaun cackles. it's a very noble attempt!

to be honest, being boris johnson's ethics adviser has to be one of the world's worstjobs! laughter. it'll be interesting to see if anyone else wants it. we have two by—elections coming up on thursday that will be a test of what you are saying because if you read what the pundits — the people who know more than i do about these by—elections are saying, they say there is a good chance they will be knocked out and these are — it would be yet another setback for boris johnson. i think the question i see withjohnson is it's a bit like covering trump. is there a tipping point? is there a point at which he can't sustain it any more? obviously 40% of his parliamentary caucus doesn't believe in him, but that wasn't enough. is this continued erosion, these by—elections, is there a point at which he simply has to go? but he's not theresa may. theresa may passed a similar vote and just gave in. she realised she couldn't do it. i think his sense of entitlement is far greater. that is why, i think, -

the rwanda issue is so potent for the tories — they nowl have an issue to revitalise themselves and bring back - together some of the brexiteers who had strayed - from borisjohnson. if they go to an early. election, this could be a very, very... immigration has fallen right down the pecking order. i mean, the key is, boris johnson is tolerated by his party because he can win. if he can't win, he won't be tolerated — simple as that. so, thursday matters. so thursday matters. because one of the by—elections is in the red wall where labour used to be strong, the other is in the traditional tories against the lib dems. i was there in tiverton and honiton yesterday, back there next friday. who's going to win? i'm not going to predict — it'll end in tears! martin croxall will be in the chair next week at the same time. from my guests this week, jeffrey kofman, ian birrell, latika bourke, thank you very much. thanks for your company. goodbye.

hello again. for those of you wondering if the hot, sunny spell last week was our summer, don't worry, this week is looking pretty warm as well. the satellite picture picks up an area of cloud that we had across southern parts of both england and wales during sunday. that actually produced outbreaks of rain which became a little bit more organised through the evening time but right now we are seeing this rain band pull away and increasingly, the weather will become drier here over the next few hours. showers fading away from the northeast of scotland, so most parts of the uk, clear skies to take us into monday morning but it will be quite a chilly start the day forjune, temperatures six or seven for parts of scotland and northern england as well. it might be relatively fresh

air that we have at the moment however, in the week ahead we are going to draw in north—westerly winds, actually milder winds dragging in there that's originated from north america and that milder air will be pushing in behind this warm front, that will be a feature of the weather over the next few days. for monday morning we have got a fresh start to the day but for most, clear, blue sunny skies and there won't be much cloud even into the afternoon. the humidity level�*s low, it will feel warm in the sunshine but there will be some thicker cloud working into north—west scotland thanks to that warm front and that's going to be bringing some low cloud, a bit of mist and fog around coasts and hills and patches of drizzle. 14 degrees for stornoway but for most, temperatures into the low 20s. it's going to feel warm in that sunshine. that more humid air will make inroads on tuesday in across scotland and northern ireland, that is why it is turning cloudier here and the cloud thick enough for an occasional spot of light rain or drizzle particularly in the morning, again, there could be a few mist and fog patches. further south across england and wales, another fine and sunny day but we are starting to see those temperatures rise higher, 25 celsius in the best of the sunshine across

parts of the midlands. wednesday should be some brighter weather i think moving into parts of scotland and northern ireland at times, still hanging on to a fair bit of sunshine across england and wales but with that more humid airarriving, temperatures can rise faster and further so wednesday we are looking at highs up to 28 celsius. the north and west where it does stay a bit cloudier, temperatures more generally into the high teens. we could start to see some showers threatening the southeast on thursday, otherwise more hot and sunny weather locally across parts of england and wales, still 19 or 20 for places in scotland and northern ireland but we might see rain in the west by friday.

this is bbc news, i'm david eades. our top stories: former colombian rebel gustavo petro will become the country's first ever left—wing president after winning the second—round vote. french president emmanuel macron loses his majority hold on parliament as rival parties perform strongly in the legislative elections. translation: we have achieved the political objective we gave . ourselves to bring down the man, who, with such arrogance, twisted the arm of the whole country to get elected. swimming's world governing body votes to restrict the participation of transgender athletes in elite women's events. we have to protect the rights of all athletes to compete. but we also have to protect competitive furnace.