thejustice secretary, david gauke, has warned the prime minister not to ignore the will of parliamenting behind a softer deal. if parliament is voting overwhelmingly against leaving the european union without a deal, but is voting in favour of a softer brexit, then i don't think it is sustainable to say, well we will ignore pa rliament‘s sustainable to say, well we will ignore parliament's position and therefore leave without a deal i don't think that is a sustainable position for the government to take. so that is david gaukejustice secretary. with me is tony travers, professor at the london school of economics, specialising in government. good morning, nice to see you again. so you were listening to all of those various options and ideas give us those various options and ideas give us your take on what might happen in parliament today if it is possible for you to predict many people now say predict the way these things turn out is hard. remember last week when a similar series of so—called indicative votes came forward, none of them managed to get a majority the point theresa may ma

david gauke, are you happy with the statement? not a word from him.inisters who has been warning the prime minister about the risks of a no—deal brexit and has been public about his concerns at making it clear that he would potentially walk out of the cabinet if it embarked on a no—deal brexit. he is presumably quite pleased with how the prior minister is going to tackle the next couple of weeks. in contrast to her statement two weeks ago where she blamed parliament for this gridlock, saying they needed to pass the deal and get on with it, today she sounded more conciliatory, saying that labour and the government had to come up with a solution together, offering the promise of more talks with jeremy corbyn soon and if they didn't produce an outcome that both sides agreed on, the government would swing behind the indicative votes process and try and use it to provide a solution that would bind the government in terms of how it approached the changes to the political declaration that are attached to the withdrawal agreement. stay there, ben. we're going

so interesting to see in the press conference if what they make if amanda david gauke was pulled into is emmanuel back —— why is emmanuel david gauke making the bad cop play in this? why is he the holdout in offering the extension that theresa may would be hoping for? there are two reasons. he sees this as the long—term defeat of the french national front now national rally, this far right you're a sceptic movement in his country. so —— you're a sceptic. it's partially to disprove them. and it is also he has a ambitious european reform programme. and briefly under david cameron and theresa may, the united kingdom said that "we are leaving, you are having a conversation about the future, we will not use our veto and sit in the corridor as a departing member". the fear that the corona and some of his allies have is that you have a situation where the uk says "we are leaving but we're going to be as difficult as we can until we leave so we will veto things, we will prevent you from doing things, this would dominate the eu atmosphere". and there is of course people like david davis who th

justice secretary david gauke is in westminster for us this morning.to about various aspects of of this this morning but why has it taken so long? we've spoken to many lawyers asking for changes and it has taken asking for changes and it has taken a long time. that is a fair point. we were close to making these changes 20 years ago so i do think they are overdue. but we have looked at this situation, what we see at the moment is the current divorce laws create a more acrimonious process for divorcing couples. and it is right we make these reforms. as you say, there has been a long argument about this and a lot of people have been saying we need to make these changes, and i think it is overdue. it is right we make these changes now. that is criticism on one side. from the other side, an accusation you've given up on marriage. and i suppose when you look through these changes, there is nothing in there to encourage people to resolve their differences.” don't accept the criticism. 0ne thing we are doing is putting in a minimum time now between petition an

justice minister david gauke said the new regime would help end what he called "the blame game", but the changes will trivialise marriage, as our legal correspondent, clive coleman, reports. when the fizz and sparkle have gone from a marriage and it has irretrievably broken down, divorcing couples are forced to blame each other on the grounds of adultery, desertion, or behaviour which is intolerable to live with. or prove they have been separated for a minimum of two years, or five if one spouse doesn't agree. christmas eve, 2014, was my decree nisi. jenny divorced several years ago, but blame and fault meant the entire family suffered. it caused complete communication breakdown and hostility. obviously, mostly from me, i became very hostile towards him, which i hadn't been and it caused shouting matches and problems that my children were then witness to. for decades, campaigners have been pressing the government to change the law because they argue that when you are getting divorced, you're being torn apart emotionally and financially, trying to sort out living arrangements for your

thejustice secretary, david gauke, says that wouldn't be sustainable, and has advised theresa may to in a customs union with the eu if that is what parliament votes for. mrs may's deal has already been rejected three times. several thousand protesters chanting "dictatorship — never again" took to the streets of brazil's biggest cities sunday, on the 55th anniversary of the coup that established more than two decades of military rule. 2,000 people rallied in rio de janeiro, while in sao paulo, a few hundred converged to demonstrate against the 1964—85 dictatorship. the former us vice president joe biden has denied claims made by another democrat that he behaved inappropriately towards her. lucy flores said that in 2014, while they were campaigning, he placed his hands on her shoulders and kissed the back of her head, making her feel uncomfortable. mr biden, who is reportedly considering a 2020 presidential run, said he did not think that he had ever acted inappropriately. the bbc has learned that around 50 british is fighters have been captured in syria over the last three months. the

thejustice secretary, david gauke, has defended his plan to overhaul divorce laws in england and waleshoped, with less acrimony. under current rules, one spouse has to allege adultery or unreasonable behaviour by the other for divorce proceedings to start straight away. in future, they will only have to state that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. but not everyone is a fan of the proposals — a conservative used some fairly fruity language to sum up his opposition. having pissed off half our supporters by botching brexit, why are we no irritatingly other half with an extreme social agenda? every single study of the harbord law reform shows its deeper, vulnerable dispossessed children who suffer most from divorce were my right honourable friend at least accept this and if you make something easier it happens more often? the evidence in terms of no—fault divorce is that in a steady state there is not a higher rate of divorce than otherwise, it also is the case that the current fault—based approach does result in divorces which are going to happen anyway being more acrimonious th

thejustice minister, david gauke, said it would help to end what he called "the blame game"., clive coleman. when the fizz and sparkle have gone from a marriage and it has irretrievably broken down, divorcing couples are forced to blame each other on the grounds of adultery, desertion, or behaviour which is intolerable to live with. 0r prove they have been separated for a minimum of two years, or five if one spouse doesn't agree. christmas eve, 2014, was my decree nisi. jenny divorced several years ago, but blame and fault meant the entire family suffered. it caused complete communication breakdown and hostility. 0bviously, mostly from me, i became very hostile towards him, which i hadn't been and it caused shouting matches and problems that my children were then witness to. for decades, campaigners have been pressing the government to change the law because they argue that when you are getting divorced, you're being torn apart emotionally and financially, trying to sort out living arrangements for your children, and so to throw fault and blame into the mix at that point is t

thejustice minister david gauke said the new regime would help end what he called "the blame game", butl trivialise marriage, as our legal correspondent clive coleman reports. when the fizz and sparkle have gone from a marriage and it has irretrievably broken down, divorcing couples are forced to blame each other on the grounds of adultery, desertion, or behaviour which is intolerable to live with. or prove they have been separated for a minimum of two years, or five if one spouse doesn't agree. christmas eve, 2014, was my decree nisi. jenny divorced several years ago, but blame and fault meant the entire family suffered. it caused complete communication breakdown and hostility. obviously, mostly from me, i became very hostile towards him, which i hadn't been and it caused shouting matches and problems that my children were then witness to. for decades, campaigners have been pressing the government to change the law because they argue that when you are getting divorced, you're being torn apart emotionally and financially, trying to sort out living arrangements for your children, and so

justice secretary david gauke explained the new law to bbc breakfast. the current divorce laws create a more acrimonious process for divorcing couples. and that it is right we make these reforms and as you say, there's been a long argument about this and a lot of people have been saying we need to make these changes andi saying we need to make these changes and i think it's overdue. but it's right that we make these changes now. criticism on one side but from the other side, there is an accusation you've given up on marriage. and that there is no, i suppose, when you look through these changes, there is nothing in there to encourage people to try and resolve their differences. well, i don't accept the criticism. i mean, one thing we are doing is putting in a minimum time now between petition and the final decree, the final point of divorce. will be six months under these proposals. whereas at the moment, it's possible to get through that more quickly and the reason why is that we want to ensure there is proper time for reflection. but frankly, we are no

then there are of course cabinet secretaries like amber rudd, david gauke, who would say, we need to need to coalesce around a softer brexit in the house because this deal has been voted down three times. so you have got those very apparent splits and the problem for the prime minister is that she chooses one way or the other, there is danger that some of them will walk from the cabinet. and in terms of labour's approach to this, i noticed that they have changed how they advising mps to vote on one option. take a through their position on all four. they are going to whip tonight on common market 2.0, which is close to the labour plan because nick boles and stephen kinnock, who have been the architects of this plan, are calling for a permanent customs union and also a single market. labour's policy was closer alignment to the single market. they are not going to whip tonight, interestingly, on joanna cherry‘s motion, the snp motion to take no deal of the table if no decision has been made by the 12th of april. but we are also looking to see how many of them might get behind just a cus