but that treaty led to an act of parliament, which brought rights into our domestic law, and it's the removal of those rights that lies at the heart of the case. the government argue that we are dealing with an international treaty that our government has signed with the other eu governments, so even though the eu treaty gives rights to british citizens, it is ultimately up to the government to decide whether it wants to pull britain out, and not up to parliament. and in court, the attorney general argued that if parliament had wanted to limit ministers‘ powers, it could have done so. when it comes to leaving the european union, parliament has had full capacity and multiple opportunities to restrict the executive's ordinary ability to begin the article 50 process, and it has not chosen to do so. but gina miller's barrister dismissed that out of hand. it is inherently unlikely in that context that parliament, when it enacted the 1972 act,
can possibly have intended that something so fundamental could be set aside by a minister. if the government wins, its problems disappear and ministers can trigger article 50. but what are the consequences if the judges across the square here rule against it, and a bill has to be put through parliament? the consequences are that the government will start to lose control. it has to go to parliament and ask parliament to empower it to act. that means mps can put conditions on the government's power. so they might want to propose amendments to the government's bill. they might want to have future debates. they might put conditions on future discussions or more detail, and that starts to wrest control away from government towards parliament. be you ever so mighty, the law is above you.
so said the latejudge lord denning. this case is about where power lies in the constitution as between ministers and parliament, but it also shows the power ofjudges in applying a fundamental constitutional principle that no one, including the government, is above the law. and a reminder we'll have live coverage of that ruling from the supreme court here on bbc news tomorrow from 9 in the morning. mexico's president says his country is now obliged to take steps to defend its interests, given america's new position on things like the tra ns—pacific america's new position on things like the trans—pacific partnership and immigration. enrique pena nieta says any future negotiations must be, in his words, "win—win" for both mexico and the us. let's talk senator armando rios
piter who is proposing legislation to protect mexico from paying for the wall —— he's in mexico city. it's good to see you, thanks very much for being with us. the first of all, do you believe there is any possibility that the mexican people and taxpayers are going to pay for a wall to be erected between the southern border of the united states and your country? we won't give any peso, any sense, any american dollar to pay for that war. if the us government wants to charge us for it, they can charge but no public money will be used for that, we have a bill for that and we have heard
that position from the president and the main thing to say about the wall is no public and mexican money will go to pay for that. we must start calling the wall by its real name, it's a hostile act, it's an unfriendly act and of course there will be consequences in terms of collaboration from our side. we have been helping the united states regarding anti—terrorism, information, intelligence, of course things will change if donald trump insists and continues to say that he will build a wall. 0k insists and continues to say that he will build a wall. ok so in the mildest terms a declaration of conflict as far as the american relationship with mexico is concerned because donald trump is maintaining that some money will come from mexico and is talking about penalising american firms who
transferred jobs and factories over to mexico, he is talking about bilateral trade deals that could affect the relationship with mexico, what kind of response do you believe your country should give in relation to all of this? we must tell donald trump and his administration what's we are bringing to the table and we must put it very clear. our relationship is a very big one, a very dynamic one. we're talking not only about trade, but of course migration and security and even drugs. mexico and the us have a dynamic relationship that we as a country must deal with in a very dignifying way. that is the kind of negotiation that we will go forward
for in my opinion, what i've heard from the president today was in the right direction, we will negotiate an integral way the whole thing, not only parts. so you would be willing to withdraw co—operation on cross—border terrorism and drugs, mexico would do that? if they keep on thinking about a wall and keep saying that mexico takes advantage of the us position then of course thatis of the us position then of course that is asked opposition from the new administration and in those terms i think mexico must put it very clear that they went to collaborate in the things that matter to the us. we will build this kind of position not only on the side but we have good allies in the
united states regarding our migrants for instance and as an example, that's the coalition and the thing that's the coalition and the thing that we must work on, we aren't going to negotiation that is hostile and only once sue one side of the situation. the potential response will be robust no question about that, what about the suggestion that donald trump will try to name negotiate nafta —— renegotiate. the argument would be from the white house that too many cheap mexican goods are ending up in the united states, what would be the response to that and what would be the effect on the mexican economy? my position is we shouldn't open nafta. if the us wants to open it then it is better to go out, that is my point of view because the position i heard
from trump and we heard from the new administration is that mexico is taking advantage of the us so in those terms it is not good to go into any negotiation. we should go to the wto, the us should recognise that about 14 million employments are generated on that side of the border because of nafta, that we are trading in one year $500 billion that benefits both countries so in the position i have heard, donald trump we should not going to negotiation, we should go to the wto and diversify to europe or asia. are you effectively saying that the american people and the white house don't really understand the kind of contribution that mexico makes to the american economy and to american
jobs? and that a failure to understand how important mexico is to american jobs and american workers could cause a huge problem? just for instance, just as an example, arizona, estate on the border sends 40% of their exports to mexico directly. we are the second x for parliament to the us. as i said $500 billion are generated because of nafta so we have a dynamic situation, a dynamic benefit between the two countries and i think that isa the two countries and i think that is a narrative that we must keep working on. a lot of people in the united states like mexico,, donald
trump doesn't know exactly and has no information about the benefits of trading with mexico, which benefits are generated and especially i must stress against the security issue. we ta ke stress against the security issue. we take care of the us in our territory. we take care of terrorists not going into the us so thatis terrorists not going into the us so that is part of our relationship and i think they should take that into account to keep on working together and if they don't want and of course then we must make other decisions. dispel those possible consequences out well. thank you very much for joining us from mexico. scientists are warning that overcooked foods including potatoes, toast, crisps and waffles could increase the risk of developing cancer. the food standards agency's "go for gold" campaign says over—browning food for more flavour and crunch produces a potentially harmful compound called acrylamide. with me is sarah williams — health information manager
at cancer research uk. looks good to see, thanks for being with us. festival should we be worried if we over brown our toast really? if anybody benneteau 's this morning there is definitely no cause for panic. this campaign, the most important thing to remember is there is research in animals that it may cause cancer, the evidence in people is much more unclear and inconsistent so we don't know if there is a risk. this campaign is about the fsa essentially playing on the safe side. but at the same side it has people worried and wondering what should they be doing? the heart of the fsa campaign is in very sensible advice regarding the importance of a healthy balanced diet, there are lots of good reasons to be sticking to this type of diet, and certainly cutting down rather
than cutting out foods that are starchy and high in calories like crisps, chips, biscuit which are included in this campaign is good for a lot of other reasons as well. everyone has picked up on this bit as far as the crew i'd is concerned, are you saying the evidence incontrovertible in animals but as far as humans incontrovertible in animals but as faras humans are incontrovertible in animals but as far as humans are concerned, the jury far as humans are concerned, the jury is out? the picture is clearing people to see if there is a link between acrylamide and a risk of cancer in people. it is very difficult to study, not only to people eat lots of different foods in combinations, as we see with the advice, it is notjust about family roast potatoes a person might either what temperature they cook the mat and how long for so it is difficult to study. and at the moment there is no clear evidence that this is a risk. the fsa campaign is about making sure we have a big margin of safety so in the future we do see
evidence of this that there is a cancer risk that we aren't worried people have been exposed to large amounts through their diets. so be sensible is the point. exactly cutting down on making sure you have a balanced diet. thank you sarah. time for a look at the weather. it's been another day of huge contrast of the dhoni uk, some of the dollar miserable, others bright and sunny and fora miserable, others bright and sunny and for a few it has been foggy all day long, the falque becoming expensive as we head into the evening, freezing fog causing problems with travel. go online for the details. an area of cloud drifting across before more fog emerges in the west country, east wales and some southern counties, all the while northern ireland and scotla nd all the while northern ireland and scotland have a mild time with patchy rain contrasting temperatures. across some southern and eastern areas as recent nights have shown, a few spots could get
really cold indeed. we have that freezing fog around in the morning which will take shifting and for some of us it when shifter tool. much of england and wales will enjoy brightness and wins. mild here, double figures in some places, chile and the south and east by the fog is around. this is bbc news. the headlines at 8pm. britain's nuclear deterrent — the prime minister still refuses to say whether a trident missile test went wrong. i'm regularly briefed on national security issues. i was briefed on the successful certification of hms vengance and her crew. we don't comment on the operational details for national security reasons. a focus on science and technology — as the prime minister unveils her new industrial strategy for britain after brexit. the series of failures that led to a prisoner's suicide — dean saunders's mother says she'd warned prison authorities. how do you like your toast?