first there was a row over the arresting of protesters. now a royal fan has revealed she was detained too, as she waited to glimpse the king outside buckingham palace. in her first tv interview,

we ask alice chambers exactly what happened. also tonight, the question facing lawmakers across the globe — is artificial intelligence going to be the next economic miracle or a danger to our whole way of life, or both? as the eu votes on the world's first ai laws, we ask how do you get the balance right between innovation and safety? and remember this promise? when he ran for conservative leader, rishi sunak pledged to review or repeal thousands of eu laws still on the statute book. but the government says far fewer than that will actually face the shredder. this brexiteer says sunak should go much further. this remainer says labour should throw the whole brexit wagon into reverse. and after air strikes on gaza kill

two senior palestinian islamichhad commanders, along with a dozen other people, the palastinians fire rockets back into israel, only to see most of them shot down by israel's high tech defences. an israeli member of parliament and former likud minsiter is here, as is the the palastinian ambassador to the uk. good evening. the police operation for last weekend's coronation was the largest in the history of the met. 11,500 officers from london and forces around the country ensured the event passed off peacefully, despite the presence of hundreds of dignitaries and tens of thousands of members of the public all keen to catch history being made. but for policing leaders, any sense of a job well done this week has been undermined by an almighty row sparked with the arrests of anti—monarchy protestors. the met expressed "regret" after detaining six members of the campaign group republic, who they held for several hours

before releasing without charge long after the day's proceedings had wrapped up. politicians from all sides expressed concerns about the arrests, which some warned risked challenging the right of protest itself. well, today the fallout of that row worsened, as it emerged a monarchist, who says she attended on saturday to catch a glimpse of the king, went public with the story of how she was also arrested and detained for 13 hours for standing next to a group of protestors. that woman is alice chambers. her story was broken earlier by the i newspaper, and she's here for her first tv interview. welcome to newsnight. thank you for talking to us. you got to the mall on saturday morning at around 7.00. police officers approached you at 9.00, what happened? i police officers approached you at 9.00, what happened?— police officers approached you at 9.00, what happened? i was “ust sittin: 9.00, what happened? i was “ust sitting there fl 9.00, what happened? i was “ust sitting there waiting i 9.00, what happened? i was “ust sitting there waiting for�* 9.00, what happened? i was “ust sitting there waiting for the h

sitting there waiting for the coronation to begin, and next minute, i realised that the police had just swooped in and started grabbing a whole heap of people. and unfortunately, i was one of the people they grabbed. they handcuffed me straightaway, and then pulled me out of the crowd, and put me against a barrier with a whole heap of other protesters. a barrier with a whole heap of other rotesters. ~ . , ., ., protesters. what did you say to them? i tried _ protesters. what did you say to them? i tried to _ protesters. what did you say to them? i tried to see _ protesters. what did you say to them? i tried to see anything i | them? i tried to see anything i could to say — them? i tried to see anything i could to say that _ them? i tried to see anything i could to say that i _ them? i tried to see anything i could to say that i wasn't - them? i tried to see anything i could to say that i wasn't part | them? i tried to see anything i i could to say that i wasn't part of their group. could to say that i wasn't part of theirgroup. —— could to say that i wasn't part of their group. —— i tried to say anything. i give them my contact details, i showed them my id, and nothing seems to be able to be said that it made a difference, really. so you are handcuffed, and eventually ta ken to a so you are handcuffed, and eventually taken to a police van? yeah, it took a while for them to get us off the mall, and everyone was yelling and burning and everything else. we finally got in a

police van and it took them another four hours before we made it to a station. �* , , ., , , , station. and presumably every new olice station. and presumably every new police officer— station. and presumably every new police officer you _ station. and presumably every new police officer you came _ station. and presumably every new police officer you came across, - station. and presumably every new police officer you came across, youj police officer you came across, you were trying to tell them who you are, show them id?— are, show them id? yeah, i was handcuffed _ are, show them id? yeah, i was handcuffed all _ are, show them id? yeah, i was handcuffed all of _ are, show them id? yeah, i was handcuffed all of that _ are, show them id? yeah, i was handcuffed all of that time, - are, show them id? yeah, i was handcuffed all of that time, but| handcuffed all of that time, but i kept trying to explain that ijust was not part of this group. up until they started protesting, i didn't even know what they were protesting about. itjust seemed that... i always thought that i was trying to be calm, but i thought surely there will be somebody soon i can talk to that will just understand will be somebody soon i can talk to that willjust understand that will be somebody soon i can talk to that will just understand that this is all a misunderstanding. and that'sjust did not is all a misunderstanding. and that's just did not come, you is all a misunderstanding. and that'sjust did not come, you know, i was detained for 13 hours. find that'sjust did not come, you know, i was detained for 13 hours. and you had our i was detained for 13 hours. and you had your fingerprints _ i was detained for 13 hours. and you had your fingerprints taken? - i was detained for 13 hours. and you had your fingerprints taken? yeah, l i was detained for 13 hours. and you j had your fingerprints taken? yeah, i was originally _ had your fingerprints taken? yeah, i was originally charged _

had your fingerprints taken? yeah, i was originally charged initially - was originally charged initially with potential to disturb the peace, and then i got a follow—up charge later in the day, treated as part of that process group. that later in the day, treated as part of that process group.— that process group. that was you bein: that process group. that was you being arrested _ that process group. that was you being arrested on _ that process group. that was you being arrested on a _ that process group. that was you being arrested on a charge - that process group. that was you being arrested on a charge of - being arrested on a charge of conspiracy to commit public nuisance?— conspiracy to commit public nuisance? ., ~ , , conspiracy to commit public nuisance? ., ~ ., conspiracy to commit public nuisance? ., ~ , , ., ., nuisance? yeah. and because of that charue, nuisance? yeah. and because of that charge. they — nuisance? yeah. and because of that charge, they then required _ nuisance? yeah. and because of that charge, they then required me - nuisance? yeah. and because of that charge, they then required me to - charge, they then required me to give dna, and get photos and fingerprints done as well. find give dna, and get photos and fingerprints done as well. and we know that the _ fingerprints done as well. and we know that the protesters - fingerprints done as well. and we know that the protesters who - fingerprints done as well. and we | know that the protesters who were just stop 0il were also saying that they were arrested for no reason as well. you were eventually interviewed about 7.00 in the evening by police, what say to you then? . , ., evening by police, what say to you then? . , . ., then? recently asked me what were ou doinu then? recently asked me what were you doing on — then? recently asked me what were you doing on the — then? recently asked me what were you doing on the mall? _ then? recently asked me what were you doing on the mall? and - then? recently asked me what were you doing on the mall? and so - then? recently asked me what were you doing on the mall? and so i - you doing on the mall? and so i explained everything, and they looked at each other in shock, really, and then they asked me if i

had heard of these protesters before, and up until that point, i haven't really had much of them. and then they said, look, we are really sorry you have been caught up in this, and they tried to processed meat from then on as quickly as they could. �* ., ., ~' meat from then on as quickly as they could. �* ., ., ~ ., ., could. but it took another three hours or so _ could. but it took another three hours or so before _ could. but it took another three hours or so before you - could. but it took another three hours or so before you could . hours or so before you could actually go home.— hours or so before you could j actually go home.- out hours or so before you could i actually go home.- out of hours or so before you could - actually go home.- out of this actually go home. yeah. out of this exoerience — actually go home. yeah. out of this experience make _ actually go home. yeah. out of this experience make you _ actually go home. yeah. out of this experience make you feel. -- - actually go home. jae—n out of this experience make you feel. —— how actually go home. iez—fi out of this experience make you feel. —— how did this experience make you feel? so this experience make you feel? sr shocking, and this experience make you feel? si shocking, and very emotional, it is not something you ever expect to find yourself in a jail cell for an extended period of time. i think about all the things i could have done that day, all the parties i could have gone to, but i chose to attend the coronation, and i got to see none of it.— see none of it. you have made a complaint _ see none of it. you have made a complaint to _

see none of it. you have made a complaint to the _ complaint to the metropolitan police, they have said in a statement to us, we are aware that a woman was arrested in relation to a protest, the arresting officer was from lincolnshire, some of the complaint has been passed to the relevant force to investigate. lincolnshire say yes, this happened, and the woman was subsequently released with no further action. what do you think about all that? i think the script frustrating that the day after this happened, i raised a complaint, and it has taken them a long time to get to this point. it feels like yesterday was a lot of police from outside of london in london on that day, but it wasn't necessarilyjust in london on that day, but it wasn't necessarily just the in london on that day, but it wasn't necessarilyjust the lancashire necessarily just the lancashire police. necessarily 'ust the lancashire police. , necessarily 'ust the lancashire i police._ lincolnshire police. lincolnshire. lincolnshire police. lincolnshire. lincolnshire police that _ police. lincolnshire. lincolnshire police that this _ police. lincolnshire. lincolnshire police that this complaint - police. lincolnshire. lincolnshire police that this complaint is - police. lincolnshire. lincolnshire| police that this complaint is with. it is the met who ultimately took over from them, it is the met who ultimately took overfrom them, and i was it is the met who ultimately took over from them, and i was detained ljy over from them, and i was detained by the met as well, so i feel at the

moment, there's a bit of finger pointing at each other, so they are not really doing with my complaint at all, really. not really doing with my complaint at all. really-_ at all, really. what do you want, alice? really. — at all, really. what do you want, alice? really, you _ at all, really. what do you want, alice? really, you would - at all, really. what do you want, alice? really, you would think i at all, really. what do you want, i alice? really, you would think that this should never _ alice? really, you would think that this should never happen, - this should never happen, and clearly there are processes that either needs to be put in place or that were not followed. because no one should ensure an extended period and arrestjust because they are an innocent bystander.— innocent bystander. hour's, thank ou so innocent bystander. hour's, thank you so much _ innocent bystander. hour's, thank you so much for— innocent bystander. hour's, thank you so much for talking _ innocent bystander. hour's, thank you so much for talking to - innocent bystander. hour's, thank you so much for talking to us - innocent bystander. hour's, thank you so much for talking to us and| innocent bystander. hour's, thank. you so much for talking to us and to our audience on newsnight. really appreciate it. thank you. —— alice, thank you so much. it's been described as the latest gold rush — the race between tech firms to corner the market for generative articifial intelligence and find the best ways to make this new technology an essential part

of all of our lives. in the last 2a hours, google unveiled plans to introduce ai into its search engine. the software will automatically craft answers to open—ended questions. this follows a wave of recent announcements from rival tech firms about their own advancements with al, which many believe could quickly revolutionise the way we all live and work. such rapid technological advancement brings new challenges and questions over how best to regulate. is the ai boom an opportunity to be seized on, a chance for economic growth and fresh thinking? could it, at the same time, be a risk to parts of life we all hold dear? the european parliament was today debating new eu legislation to restrict ai, following the lead of other countries, including china. here in the uk, the government's taken a different approach. we'll discuss all of this in a moment. first, here's kate. it has been described as the ai arms race, a new wave of genus of artificial intelligence, which can produce pictures or text in response

to prompts being rolled out at a dizzying pace. each company hoping theirs will become the go—to product of the future. the promise here is a tool that can summarise stories, write code, produce letters, or even poetry, within seconds, having almost endless uses. yesterday, google even announced plans to incorporate ai into its search, so that when users type in a question, a short summary answer will be generated automatically. at the moment, users have to opt in, but the idea is forfurther integration. countries are in their own race for regulation. there could be an advantage for getting there first and setting the global standard, and whatever the promise of ai, there are clear risks to be managed. it can be inaccurate, it can get things wrong. that might not matter if you're asking a jackpot to give you a cocktail recipe, but it matter if you are integrating it into diagnosing whether patients have a serious disease, for example. for example, the uk's photographic

metric was shown to be biased as people with darker skin, and amazon's recruitment tool famously did not recommend any woman for interview. ., , ., interview. the eu have put together a conveyance _ interview. the eu have put together a conveyance of _ interview. the eu have put together a conveyance of ai _ interview. the eu have put together a conveyance of ai acts _ interview. the eu have put together a conveyance of ai acts to _ interview. the eu have put together a conveyance of ai acts to pass - interview. the eu have put together a conveyance of ai acts to pass a . a conveyance of ai acts to pass a committee vote today, and it centres on four wheels. unacceptable risk, real—time facial recognition public spaces, will be banned. high risks will be subject to strict controls, including which data can be used to train that system in the first place. and at the other end, minimal risk like video games can be freely used. but categorising things comes with drawbacks. this law has been in development of 2021 —— since 2021 before this latest ai explosion. they effectively have to scramble and rewrite the law in the last couple of months, and so i have great concerns about how sustainable such a proposal will be, given how

exponentially, how this technology is accelerating exponentially. ichina is accelerating exponentially. china has also quickly — is accelerating exponentially. china has also quickly set _ is accelerating exponentially. china has also quickly set out _ is accelerating exponentially. china has also quickly set out draft generations for this new generation of genus of ai —— draft legislation. id suggest any generated content should reflect socialist court values. but experts say there are still lessons for the rest of the world. ,, ., still lessons for the rest of the world. ., , ., ., world. some of the things that china have built, some _ world. some of the things that china have built, some of— world. some of the things that china have built, some of the _ world. some of the things that china l have built, some of the requirements it has— have built, some of the requirements it has built, _ have built, some of the requirements it has built, are very similar to what _ it has built, are very similar to what us— it has built, are very similar to what us civil society has advocated. you know. — what us civil society has advocated. you know, some researchers both in google _ you know, some researchers both in google and externally advocated for a system _ google and externally advocated for a system to disclose what date of the system is trained on, what bias it has _ the system is trained on, what bias it has that— the system is trained on, what bias it has. that is almost exact with what _ it has. that is almost exact with what is — it has. that is almost exact with what is built into china's algorithm itself _ what is built into china's algorithm itself in _ what is built into china's algorithm itself. in china, information goes to the _ itself. in china, information goes to the government and puts that into its own _ to the government and puts that into its own ends. but we can see whether that is— its own ends. but we can see whether that is feasible.— that is feasible. there is of course another approach, _ that is feasible. there is of course another approach, one _ that is feasible. there is of course another approach, one which - that is feasible. there is of course another approach, one which asksj another approach, one which asks whether we need to produce brand—new regulations for this brand—new challenge. regulations for this brand-new challenge-— regulations for this brand-new challene. . ,, .,

challenge. when you think about it, these technologies _ challenge. when you think about it, these technologies come _ challenge. when you think about it, these technologies come down - challenge. when you think about it, these technologies come down to i these technologies come down to three essential building blocks. there is data, there are people involved in building these tools of technologies, and there are corporations. and, you know, you do not have to be a lawyer to recognise that data, people, and corporations are all subject to existing laws and regulations, so we do not have to always wait for a new ai specific laws and regulations. that is similar to — laws and regulations. that is similar to the _ laws and regulations. that is similar to the approach - laws and regulations. that is similar to the approach the l laws and regulations. that is i similar to the approach the uk laws and regulations. that is - similar to the approach the uk is taking. in march, the government set out what it called a pro—innovation approach. instead of a whole new regulator, existing bodies will instead be asked to react to ai in their domain. the pace of ai does demand a response, and clear challenges to regulating a technology that could be used by anyone for almost anything. but there are also rewards for winning there are also rewards for winning the regulatory arms giving users confidence in the safety of this new tech. i'm joined now by priya lakhani, founder ceo of century tech, an artificial intelligence

education technology company. can you please explain ai in simple terms? ., ., �* can you please explain ai in simple terms? ., ., ~ , ., «i terms? not all ai is equal, i think that is the — terms? not all ai is equal, i think that is the first _ terms? not all ai is equal, i think that is the first thing. _ terms? not all ai is equal, i think that is the first thing. we - terms? not all ai is equal, i think that is the first thing. we have i that is the first thing. we have genus of ai, about which everyone has become quite excited, for example chaps gdp, lots of people have been playing on, that artificial intelligence technology has been built to generate media and content like text, images, and so most ai, it is very popular to use what is called machine learning, you will hear these words in these terms interchangeably, but essentially it is a supervised system that will generate text to media. then you have non—genus of ai, the ai that most of you are used to on your smartphones, shopping and is in or watching movies on netflix, and they have recommendation algorithms, or looking at patterns and data are fully able to spot particular health conditions that might then lead to predictions in areas of cancer or medical research. so that is al that

is trained on a date at making recommendations, you know, potentially offering decisions up, and that is not generating any content but it is producing recommendations and nudging you in a certain direction. the speed of ai is rapid, it is progressing rapidly. as that's been something we should be concerned about? because not all ai is equal, the positive cases like health care, deep mind managed to predict protein structures and how they unfold so we have sped up drug recovery —— discovery to combat malaria, resistance to antibiotics and i have seenin resistance to antibiotics and i have seen in education how you can use an ai system to predict how you learn, where you might struggle before you struggle to stop any change being stuck and doing better in your exams and outcomes in education.— and outcomes in education. where there was positive, _ and outcomes in education. where there was positive, narrow- and outcomes in education. where there was positive, narrow cases i and outcomes in education. where i there was positive, narrow cases are concerned, we would love to speed that up because these cases in

society are tremendously positive and significant. however, large language model technology, which is what everyone is used to in terms of chatgpt, that surprised a lot of people in terms of its sophistication. what people are worried about is because regulation is chasing innovation and we have today seen that the eu has made steps towards the ai act in the uk has announced a regulation in this area and that particular technology thatis area and that particular technology that is trained on the internet and that is trained on the internet and that everyone uses has the ability at scale, in the hands of bad actors, to spread fake news and disinformation. if you have a third of people in the uk, i looked this up, use social media for their news feeds, that sort of information and the way in which this ai develops will affect policymakers so the big debate about the bbc licence model has been contentious for some time. should be in a rush to not predict

forensicjournalism that protects the eyes and ears of the world? what the eyes and ears of the world? why is al a the eyes and ears of the world? why is at a further— the eyes and ears of the world? why is al a further risk _ the eyes and ears of the world? why is al a further risk was shallow because this technology is so much more sophisticated. so we will not know it is a bad actor? sorry, it has read everything on the internet. it knows how to deceive you. it can be used at scale. if you converge social media technology with the idea that this technology can create content, in the hands of a bad actor who maybe wants to sway an election or spread misinformation about vaccines, can you imagine the scale at which these people will be able to do that? and geoffrey hinton, the godfather of artificial intelligence, recently left google and we should heed his advice in other areas also so if this technology is used at scale, what does that mean in terms of the displacement ofjobs and skills? when we have lots of people leaving

formal education with memorisation strategies as their foremost strategy? what happens when jobs that involve transactions and processing happens, do we have a basic income? and he talks about super intelligence erasing humanity, which is extreme but you cannot dismiss it. which is extreme but you cannot dismiss it— which is extreme but you cannot dismiss it. ., «i , ., , . ., dismiss it. thank you very much for talkin to dismiss it. thank you very much for talking to our _ dismiss it. thank you very much for talking to our audience _ dismiss it. thank you very much for talking to our audience on - talking to our audience on newsnight. thank you. when rishi sunak was running for the conservative leadership last year, he promised that if he got the top job then he would review or repeal all eu laws which stayed in the statute book after brexit. now the government says it no longer plans to do that, withjust 600 eu laws immediately facing the chop. the climb—down has sparked a row in the conservative party about whether the government is going soft on brexit. but the angst isn't restricted to the ruling party. today the former labour communications chief alastair campbell warned keir starmer risked looking weak if he failed to reopen the debate about the uk's place in europe. sir keir, of course, has seemed reluctant to engage with brexit at all.

but there are some in his party who believe he should chart a more assertive course. seven years on, how will brexit shape the next election. we'll discuss in a moment with alastair campbell and alex philipps, whose reform party believe they pose a threat to the tories. first, here's nick. # italian barmy army, the borgia family... a powerful european dynasty noted for double—dealing. # i splashed my cash to all the papal cardinals in hope. # that they'd be bought, they were, in short, and i became the pope... and now a term for a rather grand insult. "the house of borgia" came the cry from brexiteers after rishi sunak watered down a brexit pledge. goodbye to plans for the automatic scrapping of what is now estimated to be more than 4000 pieces of eu law retained by the uk. instead, around 2000 eu laws will be

repealed by the end of this year. and some questions from brexiteers... why then, when it's going to the other place, the house of lords, has the government performed a massive climb—down on its own bill, despite having such strong support from its own backbenchers? secretary of state, what on earth are you playing at? he should know that i am not somebody who gets pushed around lightly. the fact is, i went in and looked at the detail and i decided this was the best way to deliver it. an unhappy band of backbench brexiteers who believe their dream is being diluted by rishi sunak. and the view from downing street? well, they'll probably think this place wasn't much shaken today, and it's not that long ago the same brexiteers, well, their challenge to his deal with the eu on northern ireland, that fizzled out. rishi sunak likes to point out

that he is an original brexiteer. a brexiteer when liz truss campaigned for remain. a brexiteer when borisjohnson was working out which side to support. and that means in his eyes, he can negotiate a potentially much closer relationship with the eu than either of his predecessors would have countenanced. some of the heat has been coming out of that polarisation, and it's now possible for pro—brexit mps and ministers and the prime minister to say, look, we are out, but we don't have to be completely out and we don't have to tear down everything as we leave. a former cabinet minister who supported remain sees a close relationship with the eu. we are not going to be singapore—on—thames. let's not kid ourselves. when i ask people about the detail of some of these regulations and i say, well, do you want to get rid of animal welfare standards? do you want to get rid of environmental standards? the answer is almost universally no. and therefore you've got to ask the question and be honest about the fact that far from this

exercise going to be a complete removal, a complete armageddon of regulation, there was going to be a question of making informed choices. a referendum in which remain should and will be on the ballot paper. once a remainer, now making brexit work. an agreed labour position, but pro—europeans are not giving up. brexit has happened, we've left the european union. but there are 500 million consumers on our doorstep that we just put up a whole series of barriers to, and that means millions of small businesses across this country face reams and reams of paperwork if they want to do basic business. we think that it is absolutely critical to get as much direct access to the single market and sort out the problems that come because we are not part of a customs union, all the paperwork. so we are pushing and challenging for the labour party to lead

that conversation. the brutal reality is you can't make brexit work, but you can solve the problems that it's creating. and i say to everyone who cares about our future relationship with europe, what matters is now what we do to help make sure that british businesses don't go to the wall. friendlier times, but the nature of our relationship is still contentious. alastair campbell is here. as we heard, he's piling pressure on the labour leaderahip. and alex phillips, a member of the reform party which believes the conservatives have failed to deliver a proper brexit. alex phillips, no single market, a customs union orfree alex phillips, no single market, a customs union or free market, alex phillips, no single market, a customs union orfree market, this is the hardest brexit you were going to get? it is the hardest brexit you were going to et? , ., , ., is the hardest brexit you were going toet? , ., , ., , to get? it is really not in this discussion — to get? it is really not in this discussion about _ to get? it is really not in this discussion about the - to get? it is really not in this discussion about the bonfire | to get? it is really not in this i discussion about the bonfire of to get? it is really not in this - discussion about the bonfire of 4000 regulations, which is a gimmick, is a huge distraction and the elephant in the room which is trade and co—operation agreement and as a result we find ourselves unable to give state a two critical sectors and we find ourselves unable to

deviate from the eu in any significant way that could be part of an ambitious industrial strategy. frankly speaking, i do not think we have seen any form of serious brexit yet but to go and get stuck in the mire of his photocopier or shredder stunt and the 4000 regulations, that is pitiful, nonsense. we should be looking at forming a comprehensive plan for an independent future. it is not independent? the uk is not? in all but name, it is still in the regulatory orbit. i in all but name, it is still in the regulatory orbit.— in all but name, it is still in the regulatory orbit. i wonder if the reason labour _ regulatory orbit. i wonder if the reason labour did _ regulatory orbit. i wonder if the reason labour did so _ regulatory orbit. i wonder if the reason labour did so well- regulatory orbit. i wonder if the reason labour did so well in - regulatory orbit. i wonder if the j reason labour did so well in the local elections in places like medway and middlesbrough is because sir keir starmer has managed to neutralise the issue of brexit, and you could be in danger of blowing that up? ilat you could be in danger of blowing that u - ? ., ., you could be in danger of blowing that u? ., ., ., you could be in danger of blowing that u - ? ., ., ., ., you could be in danger of blowing that up? not at all. i did not say and have not — that up? not at all. i did not say and have not said _ that up? not at all. i did not say and have not said that _ that up? not at all. i did not say and have not said that he - that up? not at all. i did not say| and have not said that he looked weak. _ and have not said that he looked weak. i— and have not said that he looked weak, i don't think he does. he has a weak, idon't think he does. he has a very— weak, i don't think he does. he has a very clear— weak, i don't think he does. he has a very clear plan for what he is trying — a very clear plan for what he is trying to— a very clear plan for what he is

trying to do. a very clear plan for what he is trying to do-— a very clear plan for what he is trying to do. but you disagree? where i disagree _ trying to do. but you disagree? where i disagree is _ trying to do. but you disagree? where i disagree is on - trying to do. but you disagree? where i disagree is on the - trying to do. but you disagree? i where i disagree is on the politics of it _ where i disagree is on the politics of it. i_ where i disagree is on the politics of it. ido— where i disagree is on the politics of it, i do not believe that this idea _ of it, i do not believe that this idea that _ of it, i do not believe that this idea that the dial is not shifting on brexit— idea that the dial is not shifting on brexit opinion, i do not accept that in_ on brexit opinion, i do not accept that in the — on brexit opinion, i do not accept that in the speech i make tonight, i quoted _ that in the speech i make tonight, i quoted wayne gretzky, the ice hockey player, _ quoted wayne gretzky, the ice hockey player, i_ quoted wayne gretzky, the ice hockey player, i will skate to where the puck _ player, i will skate to where the puck is — player, i will skate to where the puck is going and not where it has been _ puck is going and not where it has been and — puck is going and not where it has been and things are moving quickly. that thing _ been and things are moving quickly. that thing today, we will not agree on much, — that thing today, we will not agree on much, but rishi sunak was utterly ridiculous— on much, but rishi sunak was utterly ridiculous and promising something that deep— ridiculous and promising something that deep down, by his own economic assessment. — that deep down, by his own economic assessment, you would be damaging, which _ assessment, you would be damaging, which is _ assessment, you would be damaging, which is why— assessment, you would be damaging, which is why he ended up stopping it. which is why he ended up stopping it we _ which is why he ended up stopping it we have — which is why he ended up stopping it. we have lost 4% of the economy and £40 _ it. we have lost 4% of the economy and £40 billion of public services, the point — and £40 billion of public services, the point is — and £40 billion of public services, the point is weaker than it was, growth — the point is weaker than it was, growth is — the point is weaker than it was, growth is slower, it is not all to do with— growth is slower, it is not all to do with brexit but a lot of it is. we have — do with brexit but a lot of it is. we have not already lost 4% of the economy. the 0br says over ten years. economy. the obr says over ten ears. . ., ., , , economy. the obr says over ten ears. ., , , . ., «i years. the economy is much weaker and in every —

years. the economy is much weaker and in every sector— years. the economy is much weaker and in every sector they _ years. the economy is much weaker and in every sector they are - years. the economy is much weaker and in every sector they are finding | and in every sector they are finding that whether it was johnson lying about— that whether it was johnson lying about his — that whether it was johnson lying about his of an ready deal for rishi sunak— about his of an ready deal for rishi sunak telling us we will get this dynamicm _ sunak telling us we will get this dynamic- - -_ sunak telling us we will get this d namic...~ ,~ ., ., dynamic... why are you not saying to keir starmer. — dynamic... why are you not saying to keir starmer, it _ dynamic... why are you not saying to keir starmer, it is _ dynamic... why are you not saying to keir starmer, it is a _ dynamic... why are you not saying to keir starmer, it is a disaster, - dynamic... why are you not saying to keir starmer, it is a disaster, say - keir starmer, it is a disaster, say that and that should be labour policy? i that and that should be labour oli ? ., that and that should be labour oli ? «' ., , ., policy? i think in the labour manifesto _ policy? i think in the labour manifesto i _ policy? i think in the labour manifesto i should - policy? i think in the labour manifesto i should say - policy? i think in the labour manifesto i should say that| policy? i think in the labour- manifesto i should say that brexit, we accept — manifesto i should say that brexit, we accept the result, brexit is delivered _ we accept the result, brexit is delivered by the tories with their bungled — delivered by the tories with their bungled deal is not working and we're _ bungled deal is not working and we're going to have to look at this again— we're going to have to look at this again and — we're going to have to look at this again and that will involve some renegotiation and that is what we will do _ renegotiation and that is what we will do if— renegotiation and that is what we will do if we get a labour government. be bold and honest because — government. be bold and honest because that is the people are. alex, _ because that is the people are. alex, your— because that is the people are. alex, your party and the brexit you want is not popular now, brexit is down the list of priorities when it comes to voter concerns and those on the right of the conservative party do not have the kind of leverage used to have. i do not have the kind of leverage used to have.— do not have the kind of leverage used to have. i would agree with what ou used to have. i would agree with what you are _ used to have. i would agree with what you are saying _ used to have. i would agree with what you are saying and - used to have. i would agree with what you are saying and of- used to have. i would agree withl what you are saying and of course public opinion shifts, i do not think people have fallen out of love

with brexit, a lot of things have happened since and people have fallen out of love with politics. they don't feel they can trust politicians to deliver. it has been seven years since the vote and in total about 260,000 eu laws are in the eu statute books and they have found 4000 down the back of the sofa... , ,., , , found 4000 down the back of the sofa... , _ sofa... they were passed by the uk parliament- — sofa... they were passed by the uk parliament. but _ sofa... they were passed by the uk parliament. but they _ sofa... they were passed by the uk parliament. but they were - sofa... they were passed by the uk parliament. but they were not - parliament. but they were not ro erl parliament. but they were not properly scrutinised. - parliament. but they were not properly scrutinised. they - parliament. but they were not. properly scrutinised. they were scrutinised at the time. the laws were not made by the british people and for the british people. i sat in that parliament, i was elected to it. don't tell me i do not know how the eu system works. £311" it. don't tell me i do not know how the eu system works. our parliament enacts eu law- _ the eu system works. our parliament enacts eu law. we _ the eu system works. our parliament enacts eu law. we are _ the eu system works. our parliament enacts eu law. we are not _ the eu system works. our parliament enacts eu law. we are not going - enacts eu law. we are not going tom _ enacts eu law. we are not going tom |_ enacts eu law. we are not going to... ., ., , ., enacts eu law. we are not going to. . . ., ., , ., do enacts eu law. we are not going i to---_ do not to... i am not denying that. do not sa the to... i am not denying that. do not say they are _ to... i am not denying that. do not say they are laws _ to... i am not denying that. do not say they are laws that _ to... i am not denying that. do not say they are laws that have - to... i am not denying that. do not say they are laws that have been i say they are laws that have been imposed — say they are laws that have been imposed on us by brussels, they were enacted _ imposed on us by brussels, they were enacted by— imposed on us by brussels, they were enacted by the uk parliament. there is no way as — enacted by the uk parliament. there is no way as a _ enacted by the uk parliament. there is no way as a member _ enacted by the uk parliament. there is no way as a member of _ enacted by the uk parliament. there is no way as a member of the - enacted by the uk parliament. there is no way as a member of the eu - enacted by the uk parliament. there is no way as a member of the eu to l is no way as a member of the eu to reject them. is no way as a member of the eu to reject them-— is no way as a member of the eu to

reject them. your mps could, that is what made — reject them. your mps could, that is what made sovereignty _ reject them. your mps could, that is what made sovereignty here. - reject them. your mps could, that is what made sovereignty here. you i reject them. your mps could, that is i what made sovereignty here. you talk rubbish _ what made sovereignty here. you talk rubbish when you come on these programmes. rubbish when you come on these programmes-— rubbish when you come on these programmes. that is unnecessarily rude! you have _ programmes. that is unnecessarily rude! you have not _ programmes. that is unnecessarily rude! you have not let _ programmes. that is unnecessarily rude! you have not let me - programmes. that is unnecessarily rude! you have not let me talk. i rude! you have not let me talk. betterfinish. i will rude! you have not let me talk. better finish. i will come rude! you have not let me talk. betterfinish. i will come back. you better finish. i will come back. you are not being _ better finish. i will come back. you are not being a _ betterfinish. iwill come back. iii, are not being a good contributor. a lot of people when they voted for brexit wanted essentially this country to take its future in its own hands and to make decisions that benefit our industries and make decisions that benefit our communities to lift wages of those who are the lowest paid, to secure borders, which is something else that has not been done, to enable our fisherman to have a self—sustaining industry and make a profit from it. none of these things have been delivered because frankly we have a government that treats brexit like a gimmick and does not have any courage or conviction to see it through. rishi sunak is a brexiteer. borisjohnson...

eventually was a brexiteer. was he? i don't remember seeing rishi sunak taking selfies on the campaign trail so i would deny he is as much of a brexiteer as he says. practice speaking, we are in a situation where the government should be relishing the opportunity to take control of various laws and be able to put into place things like state aid into critical sectors. astrazeneca is moving to ireland. a manufacturing moving to china. alistair campbell? iiiiiiiii manufacturing moving to china. alistair campbell?— manufacturing moving to china. alistair campbell? will any of these eo - le who alistair campbell? will any of these people who fought _ alistair campbell? will any of these people who fought so _ alistair campbell? will any of these people who fought so hard - alistair campbell? will any of these people who fought so hard for- alistair campbell? will any of these | people who fought so hard for brexit ever face _ people who fought so hard for brexit ever face up to their own responsibility and face the fact that what they all promised was a packet _ that what they all promised was a packet of— that what they all promised was a packet of lies? what they promised would _ packet of lies? what they promised would never work. none of you have ever put— would never work. none of you have ever put forward a plan that says this is— ever put forward a plan that says this is brexit and this is how it works— this is brexit and this is how it works without damaging us here in the uk _ works without damaging us here in the uk. when i say you talk nonsense, let me finish two all of those _ nonsense, let me finish two all of those laws — nonsense, let me finish two all of those laws you talked about were enacted _ those laws you talked about were enacted by unelected british

governments and elected british parliaments. the fact that you in europe _ parliaments. the fact that you in europe could not do anything about it underlines that the sovereignty was here — it underlines that the sovereignty was here so all of your lies about taking _ was here so all of your lies about taking back control, more money for the nhs, _ taking back control, more money for the nhs, sovereignty... hold taking back control, more money for the nhs, sovereignty...— the nhs, sovereignty... hold on... i knew ou the nhs, sovereignty... hold on... i knew you would _ the nhs, sovereignty... hold on... i knew you would come _ the nhs, sovereignty... hold on... i knew you would come up _ the nhs, sovereignty... hold on... i knew you would come up with i the nhs, sovereignty... hold on... i knew you would come up with the i knew you would come up with the money for the nhs. nothing to do with me, and it is very rich, and that he was part of telling lies to invade a country to accuse me of dishonesty. invade a country to accuse me of dishonesty-— dishonesty. you have got to the ar ument dishonesty. you have got to the argument there, _ dishonesty. you have got to the argument there, my _ dishonesty. you have got to the argument there, my dear. if i i dishonesty. you have got to the i argument there, my dear. ifi may atronise argument there, my dear. ifi may patronise you- _ argument there, my dear. ifi may patronise you. that _ argument there, my dear. ifi may patronise you. that is _ argument there, my dear. ifi may patronise you. that is it. - argument there, my dear. ifi may patronise you. that is it. you i argument there, my dear. ifi may| patronise you. that is it. you bring on these people. _ patronise you. that is it. you bring on these people, you _ patronise you. that is it. you bring on these people, you never- patronise you. that is it. you bring i on these people, you never challenge them _ on these people, you never challenge them, you _ on these people, you never challenge them, you let them talk utter rubbish — them, you let them talk utter rubbish about brexit and it has happened on the bbc for year after year after— happened on the bbc for year after year after year. | happened on the bbc for year after year after year-— year after year. i will not take that from _ year after year. i will not take that from you, _ year after year. i will not take that from you, with _ year after year. i will not take that from you, with respect. i year after year. i will not take i that from you, with respect. thank you very much for being on the programme. thank you for coming on. god sake! hundreds of rockets have been fired

into israel from gaza in retaliation for the israeli military killing two palestinian islamichhad commanders in air strikes on the enclave. a pre—dawn attack on an apartment in khan younis killed the head of pij's rocket—launching force and two others, who the israeli military said were also militants. israel's air attack killed notjust the two senior islamichhad commanders, but according to local reports, 28 people in hamas—controlled gaza city, including women and children. in response to the deaths, hundreds of rockets were fired from the palestinian enclave. the israeli prime minister used these words to describe the attack. translation: before dawn, | we eliminated the commander of islamichhad's rocket force in gaza. now, less than an hour ago, we eliminated his deputy too. as i have already said, whoever comes to harm us, his blood is forfeit. and the blood of his successor is forfeit too. sirens sent residents to shelters in southern israeli towns close

to gaza as iron dome air defense interceptors shot down some incoming rockets. in rehovot, a city south of tel aviv, a direct hit on a four—storey apartment building wounded three people, medics said. the israeli defense force say it had hit 158 targets in gaza, including a mortar post and a command room for anti—tank missile attacks. at least 523 rockets were launched, 380 of which crossed into israel, where iron dome and david's sling interceptors claimed a 96% shootdown rate. the israelis say more than 100 of the rockets fired at them had malfunctioned and fallen short, killing four palestinians, including a ten—year—old girl. islamichhad denied that. let's talk now to danny danon, a member of israel's knesset for the ruling likud party, and chairman of world likud,

the international wing of the party. he also previously served as israel's permanent representative to the un, and is a former deputy defence minister. focusing on the last few days of the violence, israel targeted and killed a number of members of islamichhad in gaza while they slept, alongside their wives and children. work the women and children simply collateral damage? in women and children simply collateral damae? ii i women and children simply collateral damae? ., , ., women and children simply collateral damae? ., j~:::: damage? in the last two days, 800 rockets were _ damage? in the last two days, 800 rockets were fired _ damage? in the last two days, 800 rockets were fired to _ damage? in the last two days, 800 rockets were fired to as _ damage? in the last two days, 800 rockets were fired to as wrought i damage? in the last two days, 800 rockets were fired to as wrought by| rockets were fired to as wrought by the islamicjihad. i will answer your question.— the islamicjihad. i will answer your question. please do, we do not have much — your question. please do, we do not have much time. _ your question. please do, we do not have much time. we _ your question. please do, we do not have much time. we were _ your question. please do, we do not| have much time. we were defending our people- — have much time. we were defending our people- we _ have much time. we were defending our people. we take _ have much time. we were defending our people. we take precautions. i have much time. we were defending | our people. we take precautions. we do not want to see any casualties of civilians. 50 do not want to see any casualties of civilians. ., , ., civilians. so was there no other time ou civilians. so was there no other time you could _ civilians. so was there no other time you could target - civilians. so was there no other| time you could target those. . . ? civilians. so was there no other. time you could target those. . . ? as time you could target those...? his manager had time you could target those...? 23 manager had to do the exact opposite, they target the civilian populace and in israel. mas opposite, they target the civilian populace and in israel. was there no other time you _ populace and in israel. was there no other time you could _ populace and in israel. was there no other time you could target - populace and in israel. was there no other time you could target them, i other time you could target them, apart from the time when they were

sleeping alongside their wives and children is? we sleeping alongside their wives and children is? t i i, i sleeping alongside their wives and children is? i , «i , children is? we cancelled strikes. you did not _ children is? we cancelled strikes. you did not cancel— children is? we cancelled strikes. you did not cancel this _ children is? we cancelled strikes. you did not cancel this strike. i you did not cancel this strike. let's talk about the solicitors and killed a few hours ago. that let's talk about the solicitors and killed a few hours ago.— killed a few hours ago. that is true. i killed a few hours ago. that is true- i am _ killed a few hours ago. that is true. i am asking _ killed a few hours ago. that is true. i am asking you - killed a few hours ago. that is true. i am asking you about i killed a few hours ago. that is i true. i am asking you about these women and children. £311" true. i am asking you about these women and children.— women and children. our goal is not to hurt any — women and children. our goal is not to hurt any women _ women and children. our goal is not to hurt any women and _ women and children. our goal is not to hurt any women and children, i women and children. our goal is not to hurt any women and children, we | to hurt any women and children, we regret the loss of any civilian life in the conflict. first they are targeting our civilians, but they also use their own children, their own families, as human shields. that is a war crime. own families, as human shields. that is a war crime-— is a war crime. they were asleep! they know _ is a war crime. they were asleep! they know that _ is a war crime. they were asleep! they know that we _ is a war crime. they were asleep! they know that we are _ is a war crime. they were asleep! they know that we are looking i is a war crime. they were asleep! i they know that we are looking after them, and what they are doing, they are not going to the banks of the officers, they are hiding behind their children and families. thea;r their children and families. they were asleep- — their children and families. they were asleep. that _ their children and families. they were asleep. that is _ their children and families. they were asleep. that is a _ their children and families. they were asleep. that is a human i their children and families. they i were asleep. that is a human shield. that is a war — were asleep. that is a human shield. that is a war crime. _ were asleep. that is a human shield. that is a war crime. 0k, _ were asleep. that is a human shield. that is a war crime. 0k, let - were asleep. that is a human shield. that is a war crime. 0k, let me i that is a war crime. 0k, let me move on. that is a war crime. 0k, let me move on- tonight. — that is a war crime. 0k, let me move on- tonight. 500 _ that is a war crime. 0k, let me move on. tonight, 500 people _ that is a war crime. 0k, let me move on. tonight, 500 people are - on. tonight, 500 people are urging the israeli government to start talking about a two state solution, because they see it without it, you accelerate the slide in the direction of a one state reality,

posting a severe threat to israel's security and to jewish identity. posting a severe threat to israel's security and tojewish identity. i am not familiar with that. i can give you 5 million signatures of israelis who are telling the government of israel to defend our people. it will not be quiet in gaza, it will not be quiet in israel. fire will be met with fire. we have no intention to ask about the situation, but nobody can expect us to sit idly by when we are under attack from a terrorist organisation being funded by iran. they provoked this escalation, they are paying a heavy price, and will continue to pay a price as they will not stop the rockets landing on our civilian communities.— the rockets landing on our civilian communities. t ii i i, communities. what is the endgame, then? it is communities. what is the endgame, then? it is very _ communities. what is the endgame, then? it is very simple. _ communities. what is the endgame, then? it is very simple. once - communities. what is the endgame, then? it is very simple. once they i then? it is very simple. once they will stop firing _ then? it is very simple. once they will stop firing rockets _ then? it is very simple. once they will stop firing rockets into - will stop firing rockets into israel, we will not continue to target the islamichhad. if they continue, we will hunt them down, we will go after them, and we will not be able —— they will not be able to leave their homes or debunkers,

because we will find them, the same way we found those leaders, we will find the best of them. iiiiihat way we found those leaders, we will find the best of them.— way we found those leaders, we will find the best of them. what would it take for the — find the best of them. what would it take for the israeli _ find the best of them. what would it take for the israeli government i find the best of them. what would it take for the israeli government to i take for the israeli government to get back into some kind of talking, some kind of negotiation? taste get back into some kind of talking, some kind of negotiation? we cannot neuotiate some kind of negotiation? we cannot negotiate with _ some kind of negotiation? we cannot negotiate with terrorist _ negotiate with terrorist organisation.— negotiate with terrorist oruanisation. �* i, i, «i organisation. i'm not talking about neaaotiatin organisation. i'm not talking about negotiating with _ organisation. i'm not talking about negotiating with islamic— organisation. i'm not talking about negotiating with islamicjihad. i organisation. i'm not talking about negotiating with islamicjihad. we | negotiating with islamicjihad. we are a negotiating with islamichhad. - are a peaceful mission, as we proved only recently when we signed a peace treaty with the uae, bahrain, morocco, and we hope tojoin other countries as well. you cannot negotiate with a terrorist organisation.— negotiate with a terrorist oruanisation. i, «i , i, , negotiate with a terrorist oruanisation. i, «i , i organisation. thank you very much for talkin: organisation. thank you very much for talking to _ organisation. thank you very much for talking to us _ organisation. thank you very much for talking to us on _ organisation. thank you very much for talking to us on newsnight. i also with me in the studio is husam zomlot, palestinian ambassador to the uk, who also served as strategic affairs advisor to the palestinian national authority president. can you see why the israeli army would consider the leaders of an internationally recognised terrorist organisation intent on destroying israel as a legitimate target? taste israel as a legitimate target? we have louis _ israel as a legitimate target? we have louis to talk about the term

terrorism — have louis to talk about the term terrorism used elastically for the last 75_ terrorism used elastically for the last 75 years. the west is absolutely complicit in this whole operation, and the declaration was issued _ operation, and the declaration was issued here, and since then the palestinian people have been on a continuous — palestinian people have been on a continuous ongoing state of disposition, subjugation, a procedure meant, and we have just heard _ procedure meant, and we have just heard about the term terrorism. when you send _ heard about the term terrorism. when you send your 40 warplanes to gaza, bombarding — you send your 40 warplanes to gaza, bombarding residential compounds, killing _ bombarding residential compounds, killing all— bombarding residential compounds, killing all these children and women. _ killing all these children and women, wiping out entire families, that is— women, wiping out entire families, that is the — women, wiping out entire families, that is the definition of terrorism. we have — that is the definition of terrorism. we have to — that is the definition of terrorism. we have to be careful about the use of the _ we have to be careful about the use of the term — we have to be careful about the use of the term terrorism. the palestinian people have been subjected to a state—sponsored terrorism — subjected to a state—sponsored terrorism for a 75 year period. i am auoin to terrorism for a 75 year period. i am going to move _ terrorism for a 75 year period. i am going to move on. _ terrorism for a 75 year period. i am going to move on, but _ terrorism for a 75 year period. i am going to move on, but i _ terrorism for a 75 year period. i —ii going to move on, but i will terrorism for a 75 year period. i—ii going to move on, but i willjust explain why i am using the word terrorism, because they are an internationally recognised terrorist group. i want to ask you about the cycle of the assassinations, the

rocket attacks, the violence, the unrest. doesn't that mean that actually,