this is bbc news. the headlines at 3:00: president trump sacks his attorney general after she refuses to implement his controversial immigration ban. the british parliament is to debate donald trump's state visit next month, has more than 70 mps call for him to be banned from addressing parliament. the road to brexit — this is the scene live in westminster as mps debate the government's bill to formally trigger the process of leaving the european union. we must trust the people. what they would be doing is voting against the people. i believe it is in the national interest for the united kingdom to be a member of the european union. i believe we have benefited from that position for the la st 45 benefited from that position for the last 45 years. thousands of gay and bisexual men convicted of now abolished sexual offences have been pardoned. in the next hour, a silent epidemic.
millions say they feel lonely but wouldn't admit it — a campaign's launched to tackle it in the name of murdered mpjo cox. good afternoon and welcome to bbc news. president trump has sacked his acting attorney—general, accusing her of betrayal after she told government lawyers not to defend his controversial travel restrictions in court. sally yates, who was appointed by president 0bama, had said she was not convinced that mr trump's temporary ban on travellers from seven muslim countries was legal. richard lister reports. no fear — refugees are welcome here! it's a battle over american
values and it's going on all across the county. in columbus, ohio last night it was met with pepper spray. in dallas, texas there was a silent vigil and concern about what the future holds. we came from mexico. things, unfortunately aren't great there now. to deny somebody the opportunity to build a future seems completely wrong. the most significant protest came from sally yates, an 0bama appointee asked by president trump to stay on as acting attorney general until his own pick in confirmed. in a letter to the government's lawyers she said it was her duty to stand for what is right and... she was sacked within hours. a furious white house said she betrayed her department and accused her of being "very weak" on illegal immigration. protection of the nation
from foreign terrorist entry... the executive order might be controversial, but polling suggests at least half the country supports the temporary immigration ban against these seven predominantly muslim nations. these seven nations, one, they are definitely not our friends and two, are not willing to provide the necessary background information on their nationals for us to even consider allowing them to visit our country. but washington's preparing for another day of congressional confrontation. democrats say the president's approach is causing chaos. if this continues, this country has big trouble. we cannot have a twitter presidency. we cannot have a presidency that thinks, "oh, this sounds good and let'sjust go do it and not think the consequences through." in a sign of the unusual times, the former president broke with protocol to say he fundamentally disagrees
with the notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion. there is much at stake. president trump will announce his pick for the supreme court later today, a hardline conservative who will influence the course of american government for years to come. congratulations, mr president. in just ten days, donald trump has changed america to the point that the european council said today he was among the biggest challenges faced by the eu in its 60 year history. this is the senatejudiciary committee. it is discussing the appointment of the man donald trump would like to replace sally yates, who he sacked as attorney general, thatis who he sacked as attorney general, that is jeff who he sacked as attorney general, that isjeff sessions, the alabama senator. donald trump tweeted
earlier, when will the democrats give us our attorney general and restau ra nt give us our attorney general and restaurant cabinet? you said they should be ashamed of themselves, wonder dc doesn't work. david rivkin served in thejustice department during the administrations of ronald reagan and george hw bush. thank you for joining reagan and george hw bush. thank you forjoining us. do you agree with sally yates ? forjoining us. do you agree with sally yates? she was questioning the legality of donald trump's travel ban. do you think she has a point? she has no point. i cannot be any less critical, or any more critical of her. let me unpack it for you. the ethical obligations of lawyers in our legal system is too zealously represent their clients. any cause they believe is notjust lawful, but has arguably lawful, .ii, the fact
you might personally disagree with the policy is irrelevant. for your personal qualms, resign. what is particularly appalling, whatever you think about the executive order, we can talk about how it was unveiled, it is absolutely no different from what the department ofjustice has sanctioned during president 0bama's tenure. 0n sanctioned during president 0bama's tenure. on two occasions, he suspended refugee admissions, one time, fora suspended refugee admissions, one time, for a period of six months from iraq. the department ofjustice gave advice to them president 0bama that it was entirely legal. there is no difference, the legal level. policy might be different, a little bit. it is seven countries, not one. at the legal level, there is no difference from what that department did when sally yates was attorney general, and her predecessors were attorney general. this is nothing worse, nothing more than run rank
partisanship. when you say she has too zealously represent her client, you are talking about donald trump question at no, her client is the executive branch and the president, not as an individual. that is what i mean, the president. surely she has to, first of all, and for most, look at what she thinks is lawful, irrespective of who the president is? no, that is not the way the ethical duties for lawyers work. as isaid, ethical duties for lawyers work. as i said, this is the same policy department ofjustice defenderjust a few years ago, the same policy. evenif a few years ago, the same policy. even if it was a new policy, all you have to do as a lawyer is to conclude that there is some arguments, even if you don't believe they will be successful, there are some legal arguments that support the policy. it is only in the rarest circumstances that you conclude that
there is no good basis to defend it. unprecedented circumstances. then you are not supposed to go forward. the notion that the circumstances are present here as to the legality of the executive order is risible. it isa of the executive order is risible. it is a bad joke. the attorney generals of a number of us states clearly agree with sally yates. do you think the problem here arises because donald trump has issued a ban against seven countries, he hasn't issued a ban against a number of other countries with which he has business interests, leading to question marks over what his thought process was, his decision—making process ? process was, his decision—making process? forgive me, that is absurd. it is not the job of a lawyer to try to game say what your client might be thinking. covers admissions from seven countries. there were seven countries have been identified as
problematic countries during president 0bama's administration. i just told you twice that president 0bama had a ban on refugee admissions from iraq for six months. when i heard you. what is the difference between a ban on refugee admissions from seven countries, justified on the basis of national security, and from one country? legally, there is no difference. but we are talking about a ban on people that had visas, green cards, individuals that had worked for the us army abroad and so on. lawyers had to go to court to argue for their right to actually not be held at airports and enter the us? that is not true. let me clarify something. this is a ban on refugee admissions, admissions to come here ona admissions, admissions to come here on a visitor visa. there was confusion. so that was unlawful, you would accept those individuals that we re would accept those individuals that
were held and have green cards, the right papers and so on? no, it was not... ok, ican right papers and so on? no, it was not... ok, i can tell you this, if you have a green card and come to the united states, sometimes you go through easily and sometimes you get stopped for a number of hours and temporarily detained. it happens, 0k? the fact it happened here is u nfortu nate, 0k? the fact it happened here is unfortunate, but it is not unlawful. to the best of my knowledge, everybody with green cards have been released. as to everybody else, let me be very clear. the government has absolute discretion to change its views on what tourist visas should be granted and brought refugee admission visas should be granted. it is entirely within the prerogative of a president. if a president wants to stop all refugee admissions and all visitor admissions, he can do so. there was nothing unlawful about it. it might nothing unlawful about it. it might not be wise, but there is nothing unlawful about that. you think it was not wise, in a word?|j unlawful about that. you think it was not wise, in a word? i did not say it was not wise. i am trying to dramatise. i happen to think it was
perfectly fine as a matter of policy. i'm trying to dramatise for viewers. anybody that thinks it was terribly unwise and terribly wrong asa terribly unwise and terribly wrong as a policy matter, that is not in any way diminish your obligation as any way diminish your obligation as a lawyer to defend it. sally yates was not a policy maker, she was a lawyer and violated the ethical norms governing our profession, which is frankly despicable. we're out of time for this conversation. thank you much. we have been told in the last short while that the new homeland security secretary, john kelly, will hold a news c0 nfe re nce secretary, john kelly, will hold a news conference at five o'clock our time and we will bring you the details of that on news at five. he will be talking about the limitation of the immigration orders. parliament has just announced a date for mps to debate donald trump's state visit to the uk. more than 1.6 million people have signed a petition calling for the state visit to be cancelled. james robbins is at
buckingham palace. this is getting messy. i've not known a row like this over a state visit for an awfully long time? i don't think there has been a row on this scale about a state visit ever. it is clearly unprecedented. this is shaping up to be an unprecedented state visit. why do i say that? partly because of the scale of public opposition, so long before the visit, mainly on the fact of the invitation. the petition has gathered well over 1.6 million signatures. it has triggered this debate in the commons in three weeks' time. i think it is as much the timing of the visit as anything else. those that object to it express else. those that object to it ex press a else. those that object to it express a sense of outrage that it should be happening so soon after president trump takes office. the invitation was given to him by theresa may just invitation was given to him by theresa mayjust seven days after his inauguration. 0ther presidents, arguably much more popular in britain, such as president 0bama,
have had to wait until their third year, and have not been invited in a matter of days. i think it has a lot to do with the sense of public angen to do with the sense of public anger, apart from the deep sense of protest that is felt by many of those that have been out on the streets complaining about the president's early acts through executive orders, the things they object to about his policies. lord ricketts, former head of the foreign 0ffice, ricketts, former head of the foreign office, he says this drags the queen into the controversy. is that true? how damaging does that make this? lord ricketts is clear that there is a risk that it drags her into controversy, particularly because the visit has been brought forward so very quickly. i think we should be clear that the queen is always deployed, if you like, as an instrument of political and diplomatic policy when invitations are issued on her behalf to visit this country as a state visit. there is no more coveted prize for a foreign leader than that particular
invitation. it is much coveted. you can see why, because the imagery in front of the palace of the arrival and all of the pomp and pageantry that goes with it, no other country can deploy the weapon of a state visit because they simply don't have anything on this scale to offer. in the unequal special relationship with the united states, this is a political and diplomatic weapon that we have and they don't. given what you have just said, we have and they don't. given what you havejust said, only we have and they don't. given what you have just said, only the queen can rescind this, can't she? 0bviously can rescind this, can't she? obviously it would be decision taken by the government, and in particular by the government, and in particular by the government, and in particular by the prime minister herself. the queen always acts on the advice of her prime minister, although the invitation is technically in her name, it is issued by the government on her behalf. is there any question of this invitation being varied in some way, being postponed significantly, scaled back to an official visit, which involves perhaps a brief meeting with the
queen over tea, rather than the pomp and pagea ntry of queen over tea, rather than the pomp and pageantry of a state visit? it seems pretty unlikely. the prime minister and her ministers have made clear they are going to stand firm behind this invitation. it would be humiliating for them to in any way va ry humiliating for them to in any way vary or rescind it. there are still a question about when the visit will ta ke a question about when the visit will take place. it seems inevitable that it will be during this year, 2017. it may not be until the autumn. there are usually two some —— so—called incoming visits to britain in one year. it seems likely that the president will get the autumn slot, and the government will hope some of the heat has been taken out of the issue by them. mps are debating the bill which would give theresa may the authority to start the process of leaving the eu. the legislation allows for the triggering of article 50. it looks set to be approved in a vote tomorrow, with labour mps being told byjeremy corbyn that they should back it. but some labour mps say they will join the scottish nationalists and the liberal democrats,
in voting against it. 0ur political correspondent ian watson reports. the phoney war is over. the courts have given parliament a say over whether and when britain leaves the european union. so now mps have to nail their colours to the mast — are they going to argue over what type of brexit they want, or are they going to oppose it entirely? the government's warning that mps who vote against triggering article 50, the formal process of leaving european union, would be defying the will of the people. at the core of this bill lies a very simple question — do we trust the people or not? the democratic mandate is clear. the electorate voted for a government to give them a referendum, parliament then voted to hold the referendum, the people voted in that referendum and we are now honouring the result of that referendum. this former conservative chancellor
said he would vote against leaving the eu, and said the idea that britain would get better trade deals after brexit was, well, fantasy. apparently, you follow the rabbit down the hole and you imagine a wonderland, were suddenly countries around the world are queueing up to give us trading advantages and access to their markets, that previously we'd never been able to achieve. his colleagues were less amused when he implied some of them didn't have the courage of their convictions. but few of his fellow conservatives are likely to rebel. this veteran eurosceptic said they would be on the wrong side of history. remoaners who vote against this bill, such as they are, do not get the scale of what this revolution involves. they say they respected and accepted, but they do not. if you think the conservatives have got troubles, the shadow brexit
secretary openly acknowledged his own pa rty‘s secretary openly acknowledged his own party's problems. for the labour party, this is a very difficult bill. but the official lane from the labour leadership is not to block article 50. although we are fiercely internationalist and fiercely pro—european, we are, in the labour party, above all, democrats. if you were to stand here, at the very heart of parliament, at any time over the last quarter of a century, you would meet plenty of tory mps who were willing to defy the party line on europe. but, over the next two days of debate, it is labour's divisions that will be on display. jeremy corbyn has already lost two members of his top team and i'm told three shadow cabinet members are considering whether to resign over his instructions to trigger article 50. perhaps around two dozen former ministers and shadow ministers are likely to rebel, too. one of them is the man who challenged jeremy corbyn for labour's leadership. i asked him why he was still defying his leader, and now also his constituents.
i still think that brexit is likely to make our country poorer, and our politics meaner. i think some of us need to stand for the interests of the people we represent, and stand against this headlong rush to the european union, and send us over a cliff. and other opposition parties will attempt to stop britain's exit from the eu in its tracks. we need to protect scotland's place in europe. that is why we are not prepared to give the uk government a green light, carte blanche, to do whatever it wants in relation to the brexit negotiations. the lib dems want a second referendum. but they insisted they are not going to stop brexit, they are not going to stop brexit, they are trying to improve it.|j are not going to stop brexit, they are trying to improve it. i believe this house does not have a choice, but has a duty, the right to withhold from the government the right to proceed with brexit in the way they have planned. that would not stop brexit, it would simply urge them to go back to the drawing board and come back to this house with a more sensible and moderate
approach to brexit. mps will debate brexit until midnight tonight, but there is virtually no chance they will stop it. a woman has gone on trial in bristol after a toddler was shot in the head with an air—rifle, leaving him seriously injured. emma horseman is alleged to have told her partner to shoot the child, to frighten him. her partner, jordan walters, has already admitted the offence. 0ur correspondentjon kay is following the case at bristol crown court. this goes back tojuly of last year, a block of flats, in the hartcliffe area of south bristol. little harry studley, 18 months at a time, lived on the top floor with his parents. every friday afternoon they would go downstairs to the flat of some friends, some neighbours, and they would hang out together and the children would play together. last year, on a friday afternoon injuly, harry was playing in the flat that belonged to emma horseman and jordan walters, family friends. harry, it is claimed in court, became tired, was whingeing and crying. jordan walters was in the process
of cleaning an airgun. we are told emma horseman, his partner, told him to shoot the gun to scare harry, to shut him up, the court was told. she says she can't remember saying that. she is now on trial for gbh, accused of aiding and abetting. she says she can't remember those words. today we have heard a cross—examination of emma horseman. she told, we have been told, the police, after she had been arrested last year, that she had seen her partner cleaning the gun and aiming the gun, that he had been trying to fire ata curtain. today, she told the court she could not remember seeing him and could not remember what she had seen or heard. the prosecution have put it to her that she is lying and has given two completely different accounts. the defence say that she cannot remember what has happened, that she is an honest, good person that was not really involved in this at all, who has not pulled the trigger,
who was not responsible for the gun and who there is no evidence, it is said, encouraged her partner to fire it. the jury have heard both accounts. the prosecution and defence are summing up. the jury will be given directions by the judge and we expect them to begin considering their verdict late this afternoon. it has been a short trial, only a couple of days. it started yesterday. emma horseman pleads not guilty to aiding and adapting gbh. her partner pleaded guilty some time ago. thejury the jury has retired and we will bring you the verdict when that comes. thousands of gay and bisexual men convicted of now abolished sexual offences have been pardoned. there were calls for wider action at the code breaking and turing was given a posthumous pardon. danny shaw is with me. back then, people thought was a one—off?
shaw is with me. back then, people thought was a one-off? yes, the government at the time said it was an exceptional case and that they have no plans to change the law. but they have now enacted this legislation, and that means that from today some 50,000 men who have died have now, in effect, have their slate wiped clean. it though they we re slate wiped clean. it though they were never convicted of those offences, offences which are no longer against the law. it affects people that have died, but also 15,000 men that are still alive who can now apply to be pardoned for those offences. it will have a real effective people that are still alive. alan turing, a hugely significant case. it was his conviction and subsequent treatment that to his suicide? he played an
influential role during the second world war, he was credited with breaking the enigma code, the german code that helped the allies to win the second world war. he was homosexual and, in those days, that was something that was completely against the law. it was frowned upon. he was convicted of gross indecency with a man. he had treatment, he was chemically castrated. two yea rs treatment, he was chemically castrated. two years later he committed suicide. terrible case. the government recognised that in 2013 and gave him the posthumous pardon. after a long legal campaign by many people, measures for thousands of others have come into effect. the reason why it is today is because the policing and crime bill, which gives effect to these measures, has come into force today. as the government minister says, it isa as the government minister says, it is a truly momentous day today. the slate is wiped clean for those many thousands of people. that is the headline grabber. presumably there
are other aspects as well? the policing and crime bill is a huge bill, it contains many other measures that will not be as popular or momentous as this one, that do not come into effect today. they include restrictions on the police use of bail. those don't come in to affect straightaway, but i think we will be hearing about them in the months to come. we will be talking to peter tatchell about this aspect of the law at az30pm. thank you. loneliness has been called a hidden up loneliness has been called a hidden upa loneliness has been called a hidden up a epidemic. a commission to find solutions has been launched by two mps in memory ofjo cox. she had been passionate about tackling the problem. it is a horrible problem. you sort of go down and down and down with a loss of confidence. sandra's loneliness was all—consuming. loneliness leads to other things. it affects your mental health and things like that. it makes you depressed.
how bad did things get for you? really bad. really bad, where i did not want to live any more. made aware of her isolation, sandra was visited by her mp,jo cox. i wanted to speak tojo and talk about the elderly being lonely, isolated, ill, nobody going to their homes. she was really shocked, i thought. she was really listening, you know, intense. i think she looked a bit upset as well. jo cox began setting up a cross—party commission on loneliness to help tackle the issue when she was murdered. it was one of those issues... today, the backing of herfamily, it is officially launched. we have had very dark days and very dark times as you would expect. but actually we are not going to be
beaten by what happened. and for me, i have decided i am going to come out fighting and i am going to try and make some of the changes and differences jo cannot make for herself any more. the idea is politicians, charities and other organisations work together to help those who feel isolated. we were like that from being kids. people is what we cared about, i cannot be back to normality because there is no normality without her but what i can do is try and work to continue some of the good stuff she did and try and make her proud. more than 9 million people, around a fifth of the uk adult population, often feel lonely according to one study. the impact on health can be profound. but admitting loneliness is a problem can be difficult. sandra contacted the voluntary service, one of 13 organisations supporting thejo cox loneliness commission. volunteers like victoria take time
out to visit lonely people. the impact can be profound. it is quite simple at the end of the day. i spend one hour in the whole week, i stop in on my way home from work. it is no extra effort on my part but the benefit people get out of it will be massive in terms of what you can do. they try and help, if they can. really, really nice people. the motto of the new loneliness commission is simple. it is hoped it will be effective. lets get the weather update. chris is... ready? thanks for the introduction! good afternoon. we have stormy weather on the way to the end of the week. before we get there, pretty big
temperature contrasts. mile atlantic air in the west and boosted temperatures to about 13 degrees. still cold with a continental feed ofair still cold with a continental feed of air across eastern counties and then we have a to contend with. edit of damp weather across eastern england, not amounting to too much. the rain is gradually easing off in eastern scotland over the next few hours. 0vernight, england and wales will get the lion's share of the rain. further north and west, a few fog patch as possible. northern ireland and scotland, and patches of frost. 0therwise, ireland and scotland, and patches of frost. otherwise, a pretty mild night. for wednesday, we start on a wet note for eastern areas with a band of rain very slowly pushing eastwards. eventually we should see some brighter weather pushing in for a time before the next system comes in from the west, bringing more rain to northern ireland, wales and south—west england by the end of the day. then it gets windy later in the week. friday could be a stormy day. that is your weather. hello. this is bbc new.
the headlines: president trump sacks his acting attorney general, after she questions the legality of his controversial travel ban. mps will debate donald trump's state visit next month, as more than 70 mps call for him to be banned from addressing parliament — if it goes ahead. mps are debating the government's bill which will give theresa may the authority to begin taking britain out of the european union. this is the scene live. thousands of gay and bisexual men convicted of now—abolished sexual offences have been posthumously pardoned. thejustice minister called it ‘a momentous day.‘ time for the sport and john. claims that lord coe misled mps enquiry or growing after new e—mails confirmed he knew about corruption allegations in his sport four months before they became public. the head of world athletics has told the parliamentary select committee that he was unaware of the specific claims of a russian
doping scandal. dan roan has been following the story. it all stems back to an appearance, evidence he gave to a parliamentary select committee in the september of 2015. he was asked what he knew exactly and when about the great russian corruption scandal that rocked the sport to its foundations. the allegations became public in 2014. the problems began in three stages. first of all, a bbc panorama programme in summer last year revealed that dave bedford have sent an e—mailto revealed that dave bedford have sent an e—mail to lord coe with attachments detailing his concerns about those allegations. sebastien g ros about those allegations. sebastien gros said in response that he had not opened the attachments, he merely handed the e—mail on to the ethics committee and did not mislead parliament. bedford said he was surprised and disappointed to hear
that from porthcawl and now today this e—mail has been revealed that he was in fact aware of the allegations four months before that german documentary. sebastien gros says that does not constitute a discrepancy and he was not specifically asked about timing by those mps, but the head of the parliamentary committee has today said he finds sebastian coe's defends an excuse and it is clear that he withheld relevant information. mp damian collins believes lord coe should once again appear before the select committee to face further questions over what he knew and when. there are questions the committee would like to put at him but looking at the evidence today, it is clear to us that he was more aware of the serious allegations around doping and corruption in athletics than he let on when he came to the committee in 2015. we asked the question whether he should have done more to inform himself more fully of those
allegations. jonny sexton has been ruled out of ireland's six nations opener with scotland. they play at murrayfield on saturday. he's failed to recover in time from a calf injury picked up earlier this month while playing for leinster. peter 0'mahony also misses out with a hamstring injury. wales lock luke charteris will also have to sit out their six nations opener against italy in rome on sunday. he has a fractured bone in his hand. bath team—mate taulupe faletau is also a doubt — he will have a late fitness test. it's transfer deadline day in england and scotland. but manchester united manager jose mourinho isn't expecting a lot of movement at old trafford. he's confirmed nobody will be leaving before the window closes at 11pm tonight, including midfielder ashley young, who had been linked with a move away from the club. they are staying. yes, yes. he definitely stays and he is selected for tomorrow. he does not go to china in the next month? he stays
with me until the end of the season. and liverpool face league leaders chelsea in one of seven premier league fixtures tonight. the reds are on a poor run of results having lost their last three matches at anfield and remain ten points adrift of antonio conte's side. i would give the advice to everybody who wants to help, stay positive. there is no reason for anything else, absolutely not. if you want, you are absolute welcome. actually, in the short term, it would help a lot against chelsea. because they are not lot against chelsea. because they a re not really lot against chelsea. because they are not really bad team. that's all sport for now. i'll have more in the next hour. let's go back to the brexit debate that's been going on since about 12.30 and will continue until the legislation is approved tomorrow.
the bill will give theresa may the authority to trigger article 50 and start the process of leaving the eu. let's talk to our chief political correspondent vicki young. bring us up—to—date with what has been going on. the government is arguing that passing this bill is all about trusting the people. a referendum was held, they say, and the result is that the uk's leading the result is that the uk's leading the european union. as a result, the negotiations must start. already, this debate, which will go on until midnight, you can hear mps wrestling with their conscience. many of them we re very with their conscience. many of them were very much remain campaigners but feel that they cannot knock this because it goes against the will of the people. one of those, the conservative anna super raid, said she backed the idea of a referendum but would be voting with the government with a heavy heart. i believe history will not be kind to this parliament, nor indeed the government i am so proud to serve
them. how on earth did we come to putting an alternative to the people which we then said would make them worse off, less safe, and would weaken our nation? i greatly fear echoing the wise words of some of the speech from my honourable new friend, the member for sheffield hallam, that i greatly fear generations who either didn't vote orare generations who either didn't vote or are yet to come will not thank us for our great folly. another who campaigns to remain was the labour mp margaret beckett. she said that she would support article 50, with negotiations getting underway, even though she thought the consequences would be catastrophic. she was looking at the idea of parliament having a final say on the deal. when this process is concluded, the european parliament will have the right to vote on the outcome. if
taking back control means anything it must mean that this house enjoys the same rights. so heavy hearts on one side of the debate but on the other, jubilation, really. people like iain duncan smith, who for yea rs like iain duncan smith, who for years and years had campaigned for the uk to leave the european union. i will be voting to trigger article 50 simply because i believe that all the mistakes of the past were that somehow you could place your trust ina larger somehow you could place your trust in a larger body and date would somehow do all the protections for you. you cannot. as a nation state, we can be in europe but not run by the european union and that is why i am voting to trigger article 50 tomorrow. alongside him, john redwood, who has fought to leave the european union for decades. he was saying that people were being far too pessimistic, that it was time to be optimistic about they won outside that year. the only thing that changes is that
we have power to make our own choices and nothing changes. we will guarantee continuity and allow people the benefits of was that we already have inherited. what is it about freedom that they don't like? what is it about having power back in our parliament that they cannot stand? mr speaker, the once and future sovereign parliament of the united kingdom, vote to make it sovereign again. that is what the people challenge you to do. i'm joined by the liberal democrat brexit spokesman, nick light. many mps saying that they were backed article 50 with a heavy heart today because they respect the referential referendum result. you have no such qualms? we're saying that since the brexit campaign did not spell out to the people what brexit meant in practice and we do not know what the outcome will be in these
negotiations, it is only right to give the british people say at the end of the process, much like they we re end of the process, much like they were given at the beginning. what is weighing on people's conscience, yes, overall the vote was narrowly won in favour of brexit but amongst the youngsters, they voted huge numbers, and they are the only people amongst the electorate who will have to live with the consequences of the decision that we ta ke consequences of the decision that we take today, of course they voted massively in favour of remain. i think the more that people look at the outcome of the referendum, i think the more they have appreciated the complexity and uncertainty, and maybe the british people should be given a say at the end of the process , given a say at the end of the process, much as they were given a say at the beginning. what about the idea of parliament having a vote at the end of the process, a vote may be six months before the two years are up? is that something that the party would vote for?” are up? is that something that the party would vote for? i think that thatis party would vote for? i think that that is a given. it is standard practice that if you extricate
yourself, as the government is seeking to, from a very complex international club in which you have been a member for 40 international club in which you have been a memberfor 40 years, the final arrangements of that, which will determine people's livelihoods, how we keep our rivers and dripping water clean, the standards by which we manufacture cars, it will determine jobs we manufacture cars, it will determinejobs and we manufacture cars, it will determine jobs and livelihoods, we manufacture cars, it will determinejobs and livelihoods, and wage packets, all of these things will be determined by the detail of the final deal. of course that should be subject to a parliamentary vote and crucially, in my view, that must be a vote that takes place here before votes take place in the parliaments, like the european parliaments, like the european parliament or the french parliament and so on. it would be absurd for mps not to have greater say than parliaments elsewhere. for people watching this who voted to leave the european union, they will say that you would like to stay in the european union and you have been very open about that. you would like
to block the result. staying in the single market for most people is effectively staying in the eu. that is self evidently not the case. there are companies that are —— there are countries that are not members of the european union. but you members of the european union. but y°u pay members of the european union. but you pay for that access? the best option of all the available options is being the full member of the club. you have all the privileges, as well as being your dues. the next best option would be to mimic something similar to what norway has got, which minimises the economic disruption. i will give you an example. just this week a study came out showing that in the city where i am an mp, sheffield, over 50% of things that are exported go to the european union. 0nly things that are exported go to the european union. only 2% go to china, only 12% to the united states. even if you know negotiate the most all singing, all dancing new trade agreements with the us, china and other countries, it will never match or replace the amount of trade we do
with our nearest neighbours. that is why, because people tend to trade most closely with their nearest neighbours. there is no illusion that there is a great global utopia out there that will replace what we will lose in our european neck of the woods. but are you concerned that if your idea is that yes, you keep some in type option, you are restricted because you cannot do deals outside. in some ways you have no power but you are paying a lot of money for access. i agree that there area money for access. i agree that there are a lot of copper misers and there is no comparison with being a leading member of the continent, but it is certainly better than these illusory ideas that somehow we can stitch together a trade agreement with papua new guinea, bangladesh and all sorts of other countries, and all sorts of other countries, and that will replace what we lose with traditional trading partners from ireland to germany, in our own neck of the woods. but the norway style option, as it happens, is that
they are in the single market but out of the customs union, so they negotiate trade deals but they do not lose the unqualified, u nfettered, not lose the unqualified, unfettered, unlimited access to major european markets. i am sibley saying that if you are going to cast around for alternatives, that is the better place to start than doing what the government has said, which is in effect to cling to the world that we can have our cake and eat it. david davis says that we will not abide by the rulings of the single market but we will have the same amount of access. that is a logical impossibility. i guess that people like me now needs to step back and look at the way in the negotiations are conducted. i hope people like me, speaking for myself, will do this. i hope i will have the humility to acknowledge that if it turns out to be brilliant in five yea rs, turns out to be brilliant in five years, that i was wrong. i also hope that the utopian brexiteers who are promising this great paradise to everybody, 350 million quid for the
nhs every week, and all these great deals, will have the humility to admit that they got it wrong if it does not turn out like that. nick clegg, thank you very much. the vote will be tomorrow at seven o'clock. the government is not really expecting this to be too tricky for them at this stage. there is a problem, if it comes, with the final vote, and certainly tricky times ahead possible in the house of lords. let's go on to geisel stewart, one of the labour mps who campaigned to leave the european union. for people who think that trade should be above... the honourable lady is waiting for a moment of silence. i take a different view. i do not think that it is economic success and peace which delivers you liberal democracies. i will not trade liberal democratic structures for
anything else. i think it is liberal democratic structures which deliver new economic success and peace. and therefore, i think a new, new economic success and peace. and therefore, ithink a new, modern, 21st—ce ntu ry therefore, ithink a new, modern, 21st—century economic, liberal democratic structure, which will give us that democracy and peace, andi give us that democracy and peace, and i hope that everyone in this house will vote to trigger article 50. mr speaker, can i begin by paying tribute to the member for birmingham? as one of the founding mps of vote leave, she played a splendid role as did the member for vauxhall, in getting the result on the referendum. it was a brave thing to do. and also, i would like to say to do. and also, i would like to say to my neighbour, who for decades has been reviled and mocked for his views, but notwithstanding, he has ke pt views, but notwithstanding, he has kept his ducks in a row and today must be a very proud day for him. i would like to take those who tend to
vote against the motion tomorrow, just to remind them that this is a result of a clearly marked out process. david cameron made it clear commitment in his bloomberg speech that if the conservatives won the election, there would be a referendum. it was a manifesto commitment, and we did win. there was then a referendum bill put through this house by a mass majority of 491, 5401—53. and then we had the referendum. and have been unwise comments, and i do think my learned friend from rushcliffe is unwise to have said that the referendum was just an opinion poll. it was very clearly stated in the famous document which cost taxpayers £9 million, that this is your decision. the government will
implement what you decide. if that was not clear, david cameron, prime minister at the time, on many occasions, spoke to andrew marr on a sunday in early june occasions, spoke to andrew marr on a sunday in earlyjune and said, the british public will be voting for is to the eu and leave the single market. —— is to leave the eu. that was also endorsed by one of the predecessors of the honourable memberfor predecessors of the honourable member for sheffield hallam, the noble lord lord ashdown, who said, i will forgive no one who does not respect the sovereign voice of the british people once it has spoken, whether it is a majority of 1% or 20%. well, it was a big vote. 70 million people voted to leave. the most votes for any issue or party in our history. —— 17 million people
voted to leave. the highest turnout since the 1992 general election. i think the member for whole vincennes pancras's comments were wise and thoughtful and deradicalised that we are now facing, the establishment is facing a real conundrum. we have had referendums on wales, on scotland, in northern ireland, about alternative voting. every time, the popular vote of the referendum delivered for the establishment wanted. this is a unique moment in our history. we have had this massive vote and the establishment does not want it. and what i would say to those who are going to vote tomorrow night, just think of the chattering, catastrophic damage to the integrity of the political
establishment, i would say the media establishment, i would say the media establishment, and following the judgment last week, the judicial establishment, if this is not delivered. studio: we will return to the house of commons. keeping an eye on that. a two day debate. we will ta ke on that. a two day debate. we will take you back their letter. in a moment, a summary of the business news. but the headlines first. president trump sacks his attorney general after she refuses to implement his controversial immigration ban. mps will debate donald trump's state visit next month as more than 70 mps call for the president to be banned from addressing parliament. mps are currently debating a bill in parliament to trigger britain's exit from the eu. in the business use today: ——
business news. deutsche bank has been fined £504 million by us and uk regulators. it relates to a russian money laundering plan. under the scheme, clients illegally moved $10 billion out of russia via shares bought and sold through the bank's moscow, london and new york offices. authorities said the bank had missed several opportunites to detect the scheme. a boom in building work — cities across the uk are reporting record levels of construction. birmingham, manchester, leeds and belfast are building close to pre—crisis levels. royal dutch shell will sell almost two and a half billion pounds worth of north sea assets to oil exploration firm chris—0ar. shell wants to sell £24 billion of assets by 2018 to help pay off debt following its takeover of bg group. bookmakers are furious about what they have described a flawed report on gambling by mps. the bookmakers' trade body has reacted angrily to the report
on fixed—odd betting terminals. those are the slot machines you can usually find in betting shops on the high street. mps have recommended that the maximum stake for gambling on those terminals should be cut to just £2. currently the maximum stake is £100 — and they account for more than 50% of bookmakers' profits. earlier i spoke to the mp carolyn harris who chairs the parliamentary group that produced this report. she feels that casinos have better protection to help gamblers. most casinos don't have these machines. most casinos encourage face—to—face gambling, where they have controls. for example, they will have over 600 staff in casinos, big casinos, but in these bookies you will have to members of staff. the people using the machines in the book is, they are people excessively gambling ina book is, they are people excessively gambling in a scene up, and they will have better protection. in a bookies, there will be sometimes only one person, who will not be appropriately trained to deal with
people who get angry with their addiction, and it causes major problems. joining me now is malcolm george the chief executive of the association of british bookmakers. it is widely believed by mps that these machines target and prey on these machines target and prey on the most vulnerable in society. it is described as the crack cocaine of gambling. surely a reduction in sta kes would gambling. surely a reduction in stakes would protect them?|j gambling. surely a reduction in stakes would protect them? i think that clip highlighted why we are so angry. the truth is, carolyn has helped these views for many years but what has happened with this report is that, conveniently, they have forgotten to tell anyone that they are funded by the casino and amusement arcade industry. carolyn just gave a great defence of the casino industry, but given that all—party group is pocketing thousands of pounds from the hippodrome casino, it strikes me as a bit rich. the reality is that betting shops are the safest places in the uk to gamble and we have
standards that are second to none. why do you think it is the safest place to gamble? because they are very accessible? they are on high streets. absolutely. but the key is that we have measures on our machines not replicated anywhere else. you can set limits and stay in control. you can decide exactly how much you're willing to lose or how long you are willing play for. but in casinos you have face—to—face contact and there is more people around to help. absolutely not. anyone who has ever seen 600 staff ina casino anyone who has ever seen 600 staff in a casino as carolyn is suggesting, you could not fit them in most casinos. it is the case that book is now the locals. they know the regulars. they are not these big anonymous environments like casinos. 0ur anonymous environments like casinos. our customers know the people behind the counter. and the people behind the counter. and the people behind the counter. and the people behind the counter and know how much people should be betting. it is a very safe environment. let's go back to this enquiry. that group said that you refuse to give evidence, why was that? because you are so angry with
the results? the reality was that it was a kangaroo court. we knew the result beforehand. carolyn is on the record yea rs ago result beforehand. carolyn is on the record years ago as saying she wa nted record years ago as saying she wanted a £2 stake, so we knew that it was not a balanced enquiry and we knew it was being funded by the casino industry, and the amusement arcade industry. there was only ever going to be one outcome from it. the result is that the government has got it right. they have called for evidence, and all parties are providing evidence. the government will come to a balanced view as opposed to a narrow partisan view from the script. malcolm, thank you. let's look at the markets — the dax and the cac because figures out this morning show eurozone inflation hit a nearfour—year high in january following an increase in energy prices. 20 more business news to come in the next hour. —— plenty more business use. time for the weather and we're
joined by darren bett. you have got an older model this time. let's show you what is happening over the next few days. our weather is going to be coming in from the west, coming in from the atlantic. and we have an area of cloud heading our way. this was the cloud for today. cloud heading our way. it will bring some wet and windy weather on thursday and this area of cloud is currently towards new york at the moment, could develop into a storm, potentially, on friday. today has been a day to forget for most of us with grey skies, rain and drizzle. if you wonder what blue skies look like, we will see some of that eventually this afternoon. here in northern ireland, for example. for most of us, it will be a cloudy day. more rain to come overnight across england and wales. wetter weather moving its way into central and eastern parts of england, with dribs and drabs of rain later on.
but we have breaks in the cloud, and it will be rather chilly. 0therwise, pretty mild with temperatures rising across parts of east anglia and lincolnshire, where it has been chilly. more low cloud and rain on wednesday. wetter weather clearing eastern parts last of all. brighter skies developing across other parts of the uk. maybe a hint of sunshine. getting milder across eastern areas with rain coming into northern ireland. but there is more wet and windy weather coming later on in the week and we have this developing area of low pressure. it looks like it will slide to the west of ireland. and it will be islands that sees the impact from this particular low pressure but we will have some gale force gusts around southern and western coasts. not much rain around, heading into eastern areas. a windy day but miles, too. into friday, we saw that area of cloud last of all. this is where it will be on friday. this area of low
pressure heading our way. and it could be a storm. there is a lot of uncertainty heading towards friday. some computer models take that area of low pressure and run it through the channel into northern parts of france. that is less likely. some other computer models developed that area of low pressure, bringing wet and windy weather and seeing the centre the much further north. that is more likely but by no means certain. some rain around, very big waves possible if the storm develops on friday. watch this space. more wet and windy weather here and there over the weekend. this is bbc news. the headlines at 4:00:.
next month, mps will debate a petition signed by nearly 1.7 million people, calling for the cancellation of donald trump's proposed state visit to britain. the president has sacked his attorney general, accusing her of betrayal — after she refused to implement his controversial immigration ban. the road to brexit — this is the scene live in westminster as mps debate the government's bill to formally trigger the process of leaving the european union. i believe this house does not have a choice, but has a duty to withhold from the government the right to proceed with brexit in the way that they have planned. as a nation state, we can be in europe but not run by the european union, and that is why i am voting to trigger article 50. thousands of gay and bisexual men convicted of now—abolished sexual offences have been posthumously pardoned.