i think the large english speaking democracies, britain, and the united states, are really moving rapidly in the wrong direction. we'll discuss how the alliance can weather these storms. also tonight, for some remainers, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die. the head of the cbi will make the case for a brexit so soft, it might almost be called remain. and just how close is artificial intelligence? it's literally in the past year we went from a place where it would get it right about 80% of the time to a point where now it's actually achieved human parity and speech recognition. it's actually achieved human parity in speech recognition. something may have been lost in translation but donald trump spent much of his presidential campaign proudly proclaiming that vladimir putin had described him as a genius. this lofty regard was
apparently mutual — with trump regularly expressing his admiration of putin's strength. today, however, the american president seemed to place his russian counterpart on the other side of a purported war against western civilisation. during a speech in the polish capital, warsaw, he called on russia to stop destabilising ukraine and other countries and to end support for hostile regimes such as those in syria and iran. with the pair due to meet tomorrow at the 620 summit in hamburg, newsnight‘s diplomatic editor mark urban has been exploring the american president's apocalyptic warning. it's the president's second visit to europe and today's speech was billed as a big foreign policy moment. given in warsaw's krasinski square in front of a memorial to the 191m uprising against the nazis,
an appreciative audience had been brought in by the polish government. it fell to the first lady to do the warm up. the president of the united states, donald] trump. and with that, trump set out his stall of a west in existential crisis and his formula for success amid these myriad threats. while we will always welcome new citizens who share our values and love our people, our borders will always be closed to terrorism and extremism of any kind. today, the west is also confronted by the powers that seek to test our will, undermine our confidence and challenge our interests. to meet new forms of aggression, including propaganda, financial crimes and cyber warfare, we must adapt our alliance to compete effectively in new ways and on all new battlefields.
and here, having alluded to the russian and chinese threats, he did at last state his commitment to nato's mutual defence provision, article five. but it was a distinctly trumpian formula that shed little light on the issue of how the west revives its fortunes economically. can it be done? a large part of the answer to that question depends on whether macron and merkel can reignite the franco—german motor, rewrite europe's fiscal rules and really generate growth again on the european continent. that is where the hope lies and, if you like, the glass of champagne is half full at the moment in paris and in berlin. today's speech owes much to white house strategy boss steve bannon. you have an expansionist
islam and an expansionist china, right? they are motivated, they are arrogant, they are on the march and they think the judaeo—christian west is on the retreat. his view of the world revolves around hard power and the need for spiritual renewal in the west. even so, many more mainstream conservatives welcomed today's address. i think the president struck the right tone on polish soil today, a strong reiteration, i think, of the importance of the transatlantic alliance and a reminder of the values that hold the west together. the illiberality of this message and emphasis on religious faith worked well for this polish audience, but it's out of kilter with much of europe. it was very significant, not only that he chose poland, you know, which has got that law and justice government, a right—wing government,
a very christian government that refuses to take refugees from the middle east and is being sued by the eu over that, but it's very significant that he, in his speech in warsaw, did not use the word democracy once. the president today claimed that billions and billions of extra defence spending was now pouring into nato as a result of the pressure he put on allies. so typical transactional trump, having got what he wanted, he gave the europeans what he thought they were after. the pledge on mutual defence. that's all very well, but it hardly builds western unity. after today's warsaw event, hamburg looked very different this evening as the president arrived for a 620 meeting. violent protests happened pre—trump, of course, but in tone and substance, the president's message is hardly healing western divisions.
i'm joined now by pulitzer prize winning historian, eric foner, and susan glasser, former foreign policy editor in chief and the first editor of politico magazine. susan, was it significant, do you think, or how significant was it that the word democracy did not appear at all in that speech? significant but not a surprise. trump doesn't use the word democracy often. some people here were likening his speech to a european version of his american carnage and inauguration speech. that didn't also mentioned democracy. he has gone back to a
clash of civilisations route rather than unification. a clash of civilisations, harking back to samuel huntington's 1993 work where islam replaces russia as the enemy of western domination in the world. does that tally with what you heard today? what was interesting was trump was laying out this apocalyptic vision of the world divided into the forces of light, darkness, and it gives you an insight into what you might call the intellectual origins of trump's outlook. it may seem absurd to put intellectual and trump in the same sentence, because he doesn't read books, he has no literature curiosity. but with people like steve bannon around him, this is their view of the world, that it has always been these clashes of civilisations. that our whole civilisation is under assault from either isis or radical islam, as they call it, maybe the chinese in the future rising. this is a view which isn't particularly conducive to compromise, to negotiation.
steve bannon seems to think we are living back in the age of the crusades where christianity and islam are at war. at war for the future of the world. if you look at isis, it is ridiculous, it is a small group of violent criminal people but they don't pose a threat to the us or the uk. i mean, the cold war, the existence of these countries was under threat, you know? that was from nuclear warfare. but, you know, this apocalyptic vision is not really an accurate representation of the way the world is today. yet the rhetoric, susan, of an assault on western values, it puts bums on seats, doesn't it? what value is mighty realistically be able to persuade americans what values might he realistically be able to persuade americans are being threatened
by a resurgent china, or and expansionist islam? it is murky. what exactly is the clash of civilisations here? that is why trump's speech today is probably really unlikely to amount to much in terms of policy. i was struck by the fact that you know who it reminds me of? vladimir putin's rhetoric. you captured earlier in the programme the tension of this on the one hand critical language towards russia you haven't always seen trump use, he chided them for ukraine and he suggested that they stop shoring assad. but that is different to the full throated, bombastic even common rhetorical nature of this speech. it is actually vladimir putin who often talks in terms very much like this. he says the number one threat russia and europe faces is from terrorism. he said that from the beginning of his tenure as russia's leader.
and he talks about restoring conservative values in a vague way. i think trump was unclear exactly what the existential threat is right now. do you think he knows himself what the existential threat is? or are you casting him in the role of steve bannon‘s glove puppet? it's steve bannon, what we call the alternative right in the us. there is another forebear of trump. you didn't mention this. but in his speech he started denouncing bureaucracy. nobody likes to defend bureaucracy, but this goes back to an obscure radical, james burnham, who wrote a book in the early 1940s, which has been picked up again in these obscure right—wing website to argue that the threat today is not from a standard from the administrative state. trump attacks what they call regulation, that kind of thing. that is a trope extreme
writers are fond of using, that it is the state itself which is the danger to western freedoms. burnham contended that communism and capitalism were essentially two sides of the same undesirable coin. what word would you employ to describe whatever alternative it is that they want to replace the old world order with? what you did not mention is that beneath this is an exclusive vision of what american civilisation or western civilisation is. it is fundamentally christian. it is fundamentally white. other peoples don't have a role in it according to them. you could call it a white nationalism. that is what we often call it in the us. it is explicit now. not in this speech but in the right—wing website and call—in radio. the racial element here.
and the religious element is very strong. that goes all the way against the traditions of american values of separation of church and state and pluralism, and tolerance. those are threats to our civilisation right now. they are coming from within. susan, the meeting with vladimir putin tomorrow, do you speculate on what a positive outcome might be? i would caution people against thinking this is a definitive moment of confrontation when we will find out once and for alljust what is the deal between trump and putin, or even find out what our policy is. we've just heard there is only going to be donald trump and rex tillerson and their translators in the meeting with sergei lavrov, the foreign minister, and president putin himself. it is going to be an hour or less. once you add the translation in, it amounts to a short chat between two countries. even if they are talking,
as has been reported, on anti—terrorism moves, can you imagine any major significant arrangement being agreed to in half an hour or 40 minutes? forgive me, i need to move on. thank you both so much for your time this evening. staying with trump, russia, and, indeed, ukraine, earlier today, i spoke with the hungarian foreign minister, peter sijarto, about being positioned both politically and geographically right in the middle of the changing political landscape. we also discussed brexit, of course, but i began by asking him about his government's perceived proximity to the kremlin and possible problems this poses for hungarian citizens in ukraine. i don't like this kind of stigmatisation. and i don't like this kind of simplification of things. we are not... it was fair to say it is a friendly relationship. no, it's a pragmatic relation.
we care about our national interest. and if you live in central europe you know that you can't afford not to talk to russia. because it's not just european countries that are friendly towards russia. i'd love to know, where do you think, from what he said since becoming president, donald trump sits on that scale? well, you know, actually, we cross fingers for the success of donald trump. and we cross fingers for him to be able to build a balanced relationship with russia because you know, as i told you, we are living in central europe and we have a very clear understanding of history. which says that whenever there was a conflict between east and west, central europe always lost. that is so simple. and we don't want to be losers any more. so, when we argue, or when we hope for a better relationship between the us and russia, it's not because we are pro—russia or pro—us, it's because we are pro—hungarian. did you agree with him when he said earlier today that the west is under threat?
i totally agree with the position that the civilised world is under attack for us. the better the relationship between the us and russia is better for us. the worst relationship between us and russia is the worst for us. you know, we are living in central europe, ok? once again. we are not living on mars. is it fair to describe viktor orban‘s government as being one of the more eurosceptic in the european union? no, i wouldn't say that. no? no, hungarian people, including the hungarian government, are very pro—europe. but what i can tell you is the following, that we are absolutely pro—european, we want strong european union because hungary can be really strong in a strong european union. 80% of our trade goes on with the eu countries. so we are interested in a strong european union. but we have a serious debate with brussels, with some other member states, about how to get there. so we say that the federalist approach will not work out. so we are rather on a sovereignty path, saying that strong european union must be based on strong member states. how does brexit look from budapest? you know, to be very honest,
we regretted the decision. why? because it's a big political and economic loss for the european union, because you had a very strong voice in the debate about the future of europe. and we were on the same side. so, we will miss your voice. so this debate will now be unbalanced because the leader of one camp, or the strongest voice of one camp, falls out. in the meantime, here we have a nightmare scenario, to be very honest. if there is no deal, if there is no comprehensive economic trade and investment agreement, then we will be in big trouble in europe, because the last time we were able to implement a free trade agreement was in 2011. free trade agreement with korea. so the problem is that the eu is very slow on free trade agreements. and if britain gets free hands, then you will be able to sign free trade agreements with india, with turkey, with the us,
with australia, with which we do not have. i mean, the european union doesn't have free trade agreements. so if this is the case, then it will harm our competitiveness, harm the competitiveness of european union furthermore. so that's why we are pushing for a fair, i don't like this categorisation of soft and hard. do you understand it? i like fair brexit. do you understand the categorisation, because i don't. ok, that's why i don't like it. you don't understand, ok, so that's a common point. definitely. we want fair brexit, that's for sure. balanced, fair brexit, which will end up in mutual benefits and mutual positive outcome. but we want the most comprehensive economic trade and investment partnership with the uk in the future. but i think that we are on the right track. so we are ready. i hope european institutions are ready to negotiate in a, let's say, constructive manner. because what we don't want is the following, that you look back to the time of your referendum.
then some of the reactions come on behalf of european institutions, where, like, as those people took it as a personal insult. what you have decided. and we don't want any european institutions to sit at the negotiating table as a group of insulted people. and we don't want the european negotiators or eu negotiators to play for revenge. what we want is to have a good deal at the end, a fair deal, a balanced one. foreign minister, many thanks. thanks a lot, i appreciate it. earlier this evening, the director—general of the cbi carolyn fairbairn warned in a lecture at the lse that brexit uncertainty is starting to damage the uk economy. she cited companies changing plans and slowing investment in anticipation of what she called the "serious disruption" that would ensue if the uk were to leave the eu without a deal. her comments came as international trade minister liam fox appeared to add his weight to his cabinet colleague andrea leadsom's recent
contention that reporting unwelcome statistics about brexit was somehow unpatriotic. he claimed in the commons that some elements of the media would rather see britain fail than brexit succeed. carolyn fairbairnjoins me now. it speaks perhaps to a difficult truth to you, which is when you describe an environment you consider less than conducive to business, you run the risk of making that environment even less conducive to business, talking the country down, if you like? one of the things that is really important to have now is a realistic debate. when we hear from firms across the country large and small about the way uncertainty is beginning to affect investment decisions, i think it is very important that we say that but also that we put ideas on the table so what we're doing today is putting an idea on the table which is not about the whether of brexit, is about the how. whether with an h. it is about a brexit that protects
jobs and investment, that is what we are tabling and a proposal that means the uk would stay in the customs union and the single market as a bridge to a future deal, it has the added advantage that there will be only one transition. how long is the bridge? as short as is possible. it is very difficult to tell. it depends on the final point, the final point is very different from today. we know the canada free trade deal took seven years, we hope it would be very much shorter than that. it is very important to say this has no interest in anything that is open—ended and more uncertainty, so as short as practically possible but something that gives businesses the time to adapt. you say it is important to have the debate now, why now and not a year ago after the lancaster house speech? there is something very important
about now because we are heading into the time when companies plan their investment and every sector, every company, has a different point at which they start planning things. so a bakery in northern ireland, we know it would take them 20 months if they wanted to relocate to the republic because of tariffs, so they are starting to think now about what they are having to do. airlines, it is a year before because they are thinking about passenger reservations. so every company has a tipping point and we are heading into that period and that is why we are beginning to hear more concern from our members about those cliff edges. you did mention the election but you wouldn't be making the speech of theresa may had secured a three—figure majority. i think we would have done. word for word? i think so because we have an important role to play at the moment, talking about what grassroot businesses, large and small, across the country are saying and they are saying it is beginning
to bite and it is important that we are able to say that but also that we have a simple solution on the table. but it is not a solution in the strictest sense of the word, it is a holding tactic, a postponement of either pain or the unknown. i think the question it answers how you give more confidence to business now to invest for the future. the economy is a flywheel, so investment today is jobs in the future and i think our priority today is that, it is so important for growth in the future so let's deal with that problem first. the almost irresistible subtext of all of this is when we reach the end of the bridge, things at that end can't be as good as they were at this end. i think that is an area where we should be optimistic. i think we can still say that we need to get to an in principle agreement by march 2019. one of the important benefits of the proposal we put on the table today is that you can focus all the effort on that final deal, you are not talking about some interim other transitional arrangement which would take up a lot of time, so we think it would make it more likely to get
to that outline deal by march 2019. except of course march 2019 is the date on which an awful lot of people would be expecting freedom of movement to end immediately and your proposal would well, continue at indefinitely. not indefinitely. indefinitely as in you can't tell me how long your bridge is. firms accept that freedom of movement well end and again, this is about trade—offs and about timing. firms are committed to, we know we are going to need to increase training and we are going to need to skill up to fill the gaps that are created. that is going to take time, so the other thing that the bridge to the future will give us is the chance to prepare, the chance to get ready, so i think that is a transition as well. i think a lot of people watching may be thinking that you would quite like to stay on the bridge for ever, and see you as one of these on crushed saboteurs.
really clear that that is not the case. i will go back to the point that business is one certainty, not some open—ended period of uncertainty, so as short as practically possible but long enough for the government, for firms, for people to adapt. businesses do think in years and they will need time to get ready, so it is a practical proposal that gives the certainty now and that bridge to the future. it is practical but it is almost completely unpolitical. is that the definition of your role, you represent the interests of your members and don't worry about the difficulty that a prime minister may have in delivering the plan you describe? well, i think everybody has an interest in the success of the economy and jobs and prosperity and i think one of the things we have seen since the election that is very welcome is the economy back centrestage, people are talking about it and how we will pay the public services, about the way we have jobs for our children, so i think that is where this comes together. that is why i do think we have a responsibility as businesses to talk
about investment today, jobs in the future. so i'm hoping politics and economics can come together in this. fingers crossed. carolyn fairbairn, many thanks indeed. there is always an element of chance in predicting the future, obviously, but the broad consensus among tech watchers is the biggest of all next big things will be al, or artificial intelligence. machines will be able to do things that for millennia, we have blithely presumed would always be the exclusive domain of humanity. reasoning, recognising speech, text, images, collaboration. ask any technology exec and they will tell you that the next big wave of innovation to come crashing down on the world is al or artificial intelligence. machines will be able to do things that for the last few thousand years we humans thought we had
a monopoly on. reasoning, recognising speech, text and images and collaboration. our technology editor david grossman has been given exclusive access to microsoft's ai labs in seattle to see how this future is shaping up. there's nothing perhaps that looks quite so dated as yesterday's view of the future. seattle's salute to science in the century to come. see how man will live and work and play in the year 2000. seattle's space needle and monorail, built for the ‘62 world's fair, probably tell us more about the assumptions of that time than the realities of our own. most often, predictions miss the really profound shifts. what eve will look like in a.d. 2000. like this pre—war assumption that the 21st century woman of fashion would still have a lady's maid to help her dress. shoes will have cantilever heels and an electric belt will adapt the body to climatic changes. pity then the people that work here, this is building 99
in redmond, near seattle. it's microsoft's research facility. in here, the predictions that they make determine the future of the company and perhaps, if they are right, all of our futures. do you need help finding something? we are betting the company on advances in al. we think this is the future. i've been given exclusive access to meet the people and see the projects that microsoft believe will shape the future. it reached the point now where people can have, you know, very natural conversations with software and software can understand what they are saying. are you here looking for eric? i am looking for eric, yes. eric is not here at the moment. i look at how they were actually walking... eric horvitz is head of microsoft's ai programme. even the lifts here run on this new technology. so much of our civilisation, what we think is special about humans, is based on our intellects, on our ability to see and understand reason, converse and collaborate and for the first time in history,
we are getting close to building machines that have some of that intellect. we went from a place where it would get it right about 80% of the time to a point where, now, it's actually achieved human parity in speech recognition and that's something thatjust happened, like, seven months ago. you could probably make sense of the jumble of colours and shapes in this photograph almost instantly, even though chances are you've never seen it before. but consider what it would take for a machine to do that. well, now they can. we've taken natural language processing research, computer vision research and had people from those two fields work together to be able to generate sentences about pictures. so let's look at another one. here, the sentence that we generated with no context other than the contents of the image here is "a man swimming
in a pool of water." you know, it used to be the case that it took thousands and thousands of images and hours and hours to train. now we are down to dozens and minutes and even seconds to train a new model. so the building blocks for an ai world are almost complete. computers can now not only recognise pictures and objects, but gestures and video and speech and text, faces and even emotion. all of these skills can be used by developers in an almost infinite variety of combinations to create new applications. it's been a long time coming. there's been research that microsoft's been doing for nearly 15, 20 years. only recently are we seeing these services at the level of quality at a developer can actually build on and have reliable experiences from, because, you know, prior to that, the amount of data required to truly make high, confident predictions from artificial intelligence wasn't there and the computing power wasn't there. but a world of super intelligent
computers understanding everything isn't everyone's idea of technological perfection. does any part of this future terrify you at all? i'm concerned with potential misuse of this technology by malevolent forces, by people with ill will. by state and non—state actors who can gain strong powers with these technologies. i haven't also think that the answer to some of that is the ai itself, i happen to also think that the answer to some of that is the ai itself, because there is no better defence and no better detector of malevolence than ai software itself. and very soon, we might forget we are talking to computers at all. ai systems can have human—facing
front ends known as bots for us to interact with. for example, xiaoice has been developed by microsoft to interact with people on chinese social media and with every conversation, xiaoice learns both about the individual and humanity. so, apparently you are mr bot. absolutely, that is what they call me around here. more officially, dan driscoll is development manager and principal architect of the microsoft bot framework. he says humans love bots. they form emotional connections with some of these chatbots and have long conversations sessions. i think the average for xiaoice is 23 turns per conversation, so people will chat, will say, "hey, how are you doing?" and xiaoice will respond and say, "i am having a good day, how are you doing?" they form a kind of emotional relationship and that is one of the things we put into chatbots. so many bots have both a sort of like a factual, an iq component and an emotional or personality e0 component.
ai will not only be able to know and recognise everything and everyone, it will know how to charm us, how to persuade us. it will know how to reassure us and how to frighten us. instead of us operating the computers, the computers will be pushing our buttons. whoever controls the ai probably controls the future. there's already disquiet about using big data to target voters. well, imagine what an all seeing, all knowing ai could do. are you concerned at all, for example, about al elections, ai in democratic processes? ai systems can be designed to persuade, to... in an algorithmic view to optimise goals of changing someone's believes or enhancing the beliefs about one thing or another. the prospect that some day, data mining, data analysis, very close targeting a particular
demographics can be used in elections to influence elections is a very, very important debate. on the one hand, we can see and we can imagine how authoritarian regimes can use these technologies through tracking, surveillance, persuasion, that would strengthen this authoritarian posture and position. on the other hand, these techniques of ai also open up the world for pluralism, for discussion and collaboration, understanding and tracking, you know, understanding the sources of persuasion and signalling coming into one's life. so we see this prospect of who is going in different directions. so we shouldn't ignore the huge potential benefits. about 30 miles outside seattle, i saw microsoft's ai form. about 30 miles outside seattle, i saw microsoft's ai farm.
data driven farming could revolutionise how the planet feeds itself. however, measuring precise moisture and nutrient levels for each part of the field would require thousands of sensors and the prohibitively expensive. instead, an ai model of the farm can be built with just a few sensors in the ground and a few photographs from the air. this is going to help the farmers reduce costs, use much less water, use much less lime, use less fertiliser, use less nutrients and stuff. so this is definitely going to have an impact on reducing the cost as well as less harm on the environment. and the early indications are that yields will rise as fast as costs fall. using cheap cameras and tethered helium balloons, ai could revolutionise subsistence farming in the developing world. artificial intelligence is growing fast, getting smarter all the time. while some fear it could end of our species, others believe it will liberate humanity. very soon, ai will take off and we will find out if we control
it or it controls us. it's a mighty tome but when you consider that its author ibram x kendi aspires to provide the definitive history of racist ideas in america, it's perhaps surprising that stamped from the beginning only runs to just north of 500 pages. the title comes from a speech given to congress in 1860 byjefferson davis, the mississipi senator who went on to serve as president of the confederate states of america. he argued that so—called ‘black inferiority‘ had been stamped from the beginning on the bodies of africans at the moment of creation. ibram x kendi joins me down the line from florida. it's a history book obviously, but it's motivation seems very of the moment. it is because i think i wanted to show readers that we have been engaged in a racial debate,
the same racial debate we are engaged in right now, really for hundreds of years. that racial debate seeks to answer the question, why does racial inequality exist? why do racial disparities exist in our societies? this book really takes the reader through hundreds of years of different people answering that question. and those that have expressed racist ideas have stated racial inequalities, because black people are inferior, and those have expressed anti—racist ideas have been suffering as a result of racial discrimination. many people would point to the double election of barack obama as perhaps the beginning of the end of the history of racism. the one you describe. yet you describe him as a following in the racist footsteps of every president since richard nixon. one of the things i wanted to do is state a very clear definition
of a racist idea. and then apply that definition to many different thinkers. and i ended up before applying it to anyone. i ended up applying it to myself and realising that i had even expressed racist ideas. and people i admire like frederick douglass, and even barack obama, expressed racist ideas, suggesting there was something wrong and inferior about black people. i think that's how powerful and how widespread and how believable these ideas have been throughout american history. you also address the issue of why people in power choose to invoke the fear of a black man, of the black person, in the minds of white people, what answers did you arrive at? i think the underlying, sort of, thesis of the text is showing the ways of which racist ideas are merging and people are consuming
those ideas and becoming fearful, becoming hateful, becoming ignorant, that these people are creating and producing these racist ideas to justify racist policies. i think people can understand if you are a slave owner and you make money from owning slaves, black slaves, you are going to create racist ideas to convince others that black people should be enslaved. that black people are so barbaric that if they are not enslaved they willjust ravage society. then you have people who consume those and then begin believing those ideas. that anecdote is indicative of the way racist ideas have function throughout american history. do you worry you may have unwittingly created a compendium of inspirational racists? you site so much verbatim evidence from historical american political giants, from abraham lincoln to even theodore roosevelt, expressing, well, an explicit fear so that people on the right can say,
we are right, even abraham lincoln agrees. unfortunately, as a scholar, i didn't have the opportunity to think of the effect of this definition. i wanted to create a definition of a racist idea which is very simple, any idea that suggests a racial group is superior or inferior to another racial group in anyway. that definition ended up becoming applied to people i didn't realise it was going to be. but again i think that has been one of the problems. that we... so many people have tried to define their ideas outside of racism. and it has left us with a nearer —— and it has left us with an inaccurate idea of it.
why don't americans challenge racism? if we actually look at american history. during the enslavement era, by the time of the end of slavery, 4 million, 5 million poor whites, largely kept in poverty due to the riches of slave holders. then you have the reconstruction era which was a boon for many working class and poor whites, as it was for pre—blacks. but then that era was of course undermined by the rise ofjim crow. ben white poverty rose just as black poverty rose. the civil rights movement was great for black people and also great for many americans. in this order to this spiralling inequality in white america. ultimately you see this history of not only racism being bad for black people, but bad for almost everyone. many thanks for your time this evening.
before we go, it has been ordained that today is international kissing day. i don't know by whom, and for what purpose, other than to assist news producers in their quest to fill the gaping void marked "content", we may never know. enough. marking international kissing day will no doubt become an annual tradition. and so here is some kissing. remember to tune in tomorrow, when evan will be in the chair. carry on kissing and good night. that's what's wrong with you — you should be kissed and often. # woah ba by # (kiss me baby) # woah baby # # (love to hold you) i know it was you, fredo. maybe we should kissjust
to break the tension? what a scorcher in southern parts in particular, in the south—east we saw a top temperature of 32 in the london area. a number of stations in greater london saw 32 and pretty hot as well further north and west, but the heat and humidity across northern england went out with a bang, severe thunderstorms developed across luck lincolnshire and yorkshire this afternoon and evening and reports of flash flooding and lightning damage. those thunderstorms will continue to rumble on for a while and push out into the north sea and it will become quieter and drier for into the north sea and it will become quieter and drierfor most with clear spells, thicker cloud and outbreaks pushing into western scotla nd outbreaks pushing into western scotland and northern ireland by the end of the night and a warm, sticky
night through central, southern areas. on friday morning we start off on areas. on friday morning we start offona areas. on friday morning we start off on a warm note, bit of cloud in northern and western part of england. 20 around 8am in the london area, so really a warm and muggy start. thicker cloud further north in the far north—west of england and into scotland and northern ireland and temperatures here around 15 in glasgow and that rain associated will be like and patchy. through the day the rain begins to fizzle out in northern areas but for england and wales the clouds will infill so an afternoon of sunny spells and patchy cloud. still a warm day, 37 or 28 in the south—east, cooler than that further north and west. not as hot as the butt i have to say it will be more comfortable at wimbledon for the tennis players and the spectators as the clouds will come and go. for the rest of friday, looks like it will be a fine end to the day with sunny spells but with the day with sunny spells but with the weather pushing into central
parts for wales because of this weather front and this will be a player in our weather through the first part of the weekend, bringing outbreaks to northern parts of wales, northern england and the north midlands, to the north of this, dry with sunshine and in the south it will be dry with sunny spells but i think a cooler, by a few degrees, across the board with highs of 2a in the south—east. looks like we could pick up that warm and thundery air again from france through sunday with the area of low pressure moving north introducing humidity and the risk of showers or thunderstorms in the south and south—east. outbreaks of rain will push into the north and west of scotla nd push into the north and west of scotland with drier interludes across central areas. quite a messy picture but feeling warm and humid with the threat of thunderstorms in the south—east increasing through sunday night and on into monday. you're watching newsday on the bbc.
the top stories: with world leaders about the meet at the summit in germany, president trump calls on the west to stand united against the threat of islamist terrorism. america and europe have suffered one terror attack after another. we are going to get it to stop. as north korea celebrates its latest missile launch, the united states pledges are very severe launch, the united states pledges are very severe response. launch, the united states pledges are very severe response. also on the programme, a high profile visit by china's aircraft carrier docking in hong kong for its five—day stay. ata in hong kong for its five—day stay. at a joint in hong kong for its five—day stay. atajoint —— in hong kong for its five—day stay. at a joint —— and