Headlines at 8 30pm. A royal marine has pleaded guilty to terror charges after he made bombs and stored weapons for dissident Northern Irish republicans. The Trump Administration has targeted iran imposing sanctions on 13 people and a Dozen Companies in response to the countrys recent Ballistic Missile test. The man who was shot and wounded at the louvre after attacking soldiers with a machete has been identified as a 29 year old from egypt. He arrived in paris a month ago on a short term visa. Sheffield city council has apologised after failing to prevent one of its employees, a predatory sex offender, from abusing his victims in Council Offices over two decades. Theresa may has briefed eu leaders at a summit in malta about her recent meeting with president trump, as well as trying to build up good relations ahead of brexit. Now on bbc news its time for hardtalk. Welcome to hardtalk, im stephen sackur. Just how ugly is britains divorce from the eu going to be, and how damaging for the unhappy couple . As british mps debate the formal triggering of the exit process, my guest is an eu politician wholl be at the heart of the complex negotiations over a brexit deal. Belgiums former Prime Minister and current mep Guy Verhofstadt has warned britain to expect no favours as it heads for the exit. But how confrontational is he prepared to be . Guy verhofstadt, welcome to hardtalk. Yes. I want to talk about brexit with you, but i dont want to start with the detail, i want to start with the context. When the British Public voted for Brexit Onjune 23rd 2016, barack 0bama was president of the United States. Now the white house is occupied by donald trump. To what extent do you think this fundamental shift in Global Politics the most important power in the world, after all how important is that as a changed context for brexit . I think it gives an opportunity from the european side to show and to work on more unity. Because lets be honest, what trump has said since now in a few days and weeks is very hostile towards europe. Hes saying openly that he thinks that europe could disintegrate further. He thinks more european members of the eu Will Follow Britain out of the door and he thinks that is a good thing. He thinks it is a good thing to have a disintegrated European Union, while i think its quite the opposite. In fact the interest of the americans is ot in fact the interest of the americans is not in a disintegrated union. The interest of america is to have a very united european ally. And you can only walk on two legs. Trump needs an american leg and he needs also a european leg. Whatever your sceptical view of donald trump as president and as an individual, the fact is the European Union needs to be closely allied with the United States of america. That is one of the pillars of European Security policy. Exactly, and that is what he is putting in danger. With respect, you are too. Some of the things you have said in recent days are actually extraordinary. You have said, you said this yesterday, i am quoting you under the enormous political influence of trumps political adviser, stephen bannon, he sent people to berlin, to paris, to prepare the ground for similar referendum as that seen in britain. Yes, exactly. Well, what evidence do you. Youre essentially saying trump is taking active steps to undermine the European Union. Stephen bannon has launched breitbart also in europe. Everyone knows thats an extreme right wing news site he is promoting. In fact, extreme right wing radical views. Yes, but thats not the Trump Administration. Youre saying these hostile things about donald trump as president which seem to me to have no evidence at all. Im a little bit puzzled that you are saying its not the Trump Administration when mr bannon has been appointed as member of the National Security council of the us. Even putting outside. You cited something that is happening at breitbart, a news website. I think it is maybe not the Trump Administration, but mr stephen bannon, the special adviser of trump. We can discuss about what the influence is of mr bannon on mr trump, what i see is what mr trump is saying. Thats more important. His quotes are very clear. So are yours. I hope to be clear. That is the reason i am in politics. Normally you have the politics or politicians maybe here, who are trying to escape the question. I, in my statements, try never to escape the question. Yes, lets think about your choice of words. It makes it boring, maybe. It makes it fascinating. Your choice of words. My view, you say, is we have a third front that is now undermining the eu and that third front is now donald trump. Exactly. It is a word i am coming back to, hostility. You are downright hostile to what youre seeing. I am not saying. Im not hostile. I am only seeing and i am only hearing what mr trump is saying. You are using the language of warfare. 0k, let me explain maybe. I think we have first of all the threat to europe by radical, political islam, jihadists. Secondly, i think we have a threat by putin, an autocrat in the kremlin who tries to divide europe, already years from now. Aand now we have an american president who is no longer seeing the European Unity as a pillar for his foreign policy. And he is saying openly he hopes for a disintegration of the European Union. So i think we are very much alone. I think that we are for the moment in an existential moment for the European Union, and i hope, my response to this is that only European Unity can be the answer. I am mindful you havejust written this book. That is my book about it. Europes last chance why the european states. Its subtitle, why the european states must form a more perfect union. Ironically, youve taken a phrase from the american constitution. Yes, exactly. I think its gonna be difficult right now to persuade europeans that they should regard as a model the federal United States of america, but thats obviously. You wrote this before donald trump arrived in the white house. Its not about trump. Thats about donald trump now. Youre making it trump is the same as the american institutions. What im seeing is america, for example, after the financial crisis was capable to react immediately to that financial crisis. They did a cleaning up of their banks, they detailed an investment programme, they did quantitative easing. Well, if i look to europe, we are not a union, in fact. What we are is in fact a loose confederation of Nation States still based on the Unanimity Rule, and we are always acting too little too late. In the financial crisis, for example. In migration, in refugess. So this book, i have to tell you, is even more eurosceptic than all the eurosceptic books that have been published in the United Kingdom in the last few months. You think the current formulation of the European Union simply doesnt work. It cannot survive. You just made an interesting point about the importance of Nation States. What trump is, avowedly a self confessed american nationalists. America first is his message and, interestingly, that message, which is essentially a nationalist message, is echoed across europe in different Nation States where politicians are winning with a nationalist message. Its not echoed. Its the opposite. It was first born in europe. Nationalism has been born in europe. Nationalism has not been born outside europe. What is more than that, i think it is a very tricky thing that is happening. That is, that an american president is bidding on more nationalism in europe. You know what nationalism in europe means . Thats not nationalism based on values, its nationalism in europe based on ethnicity. And what nationalism has done in the last 100 years in europe, we all know it 20 million deaths, victims, pogroms, the shoah, all of this is based on nationalism. So an american president thinking, 0h, European Unity is not necessary, lets go back to national identity, to ideas of nationalism. Thats Playing With Fire in europe this is not america this is europe we had the shoah, we had the holocaust, we had the pogroms. Well, you can. I think it is a fair argument. You can cite the events of the 1930s and 40s at me but lets stick with whats happening today. Yes, but it can come back. Lets stick with my opening question about the context for brexit. I come back to this basic point about the situation today in europe. You have just seem theresa may in the white house with donald trump talking about the steadfast alliance between britain and europe. Youve heard donald trump saying that he is going to seek a very quick trade deal with britain. Talking in the most positive terms about britain post brexit. It weakens your hand as an eu negotiator, does it not, that britain is now looking at this very close relationship with donald trump . I am not reasoning in those terms because i know that the interest of the uk is more in europe than in the us. You know the figures, you know the figures. 44 of the exports of britain goes to the continent, to europe. 0nly12 goes to the us. So whatever Free Trade Agreement is made between the us and the uk, the main interest of the british industry, the british companies, british workers, british citizens, sits in europe and is in europe. And so these negotiations will be very important. And i am very open about it. I think fairness is the basic principle we need to apply in these negotiations. So when theresa may says, alongside donald trump, that, she said to donald, as you renew your nation, we renew ours, the opportunity is here to renew the Special Relationship, the post eu britain and trumps america will lead together again, your response to that is . My response was yesterday in the streets of london, i think, i have seen thousands and thousands of people not agree with this. I dont believe in the rhetoric or in the narrative of trump. I think it is devastating. Also for the american economy, because protectionism, because thats also part of his narrative. How you can make an agreement between the uk, which is an open society who believes in trade, i think, and on the other hand an american president who is seeing every Trade Deficit with whatever country as an existential threat. And there is a Trade Deficit from the us towards the uk. So, good luck with it. I think that it is more interesting for the uk authorities to Work Together on a Fair Partnership with the European Union because that is the biggest market for the british industry. And i want to tease out what you mean by a Fair Partnership in a moment. But before we get to the detail of the negotiations, which you will be involved in, just one more specific point which i think arises out of what were seeing in the United States and what weve heard from theresa may and that is a question about security. We will get to economics. But security, you know as well as i do that britain has been a linchpin of European Security. 0ur armed forces are superior to most in europe, our Intelligence Services are superior to most in europe. If you talk to people in germany, poland, the baltic republics. All true. They all say we need a close security relationship with britain come what may, whether brexit happens or not. That is also my point. I think that we have to discuss not only the Economic Partnership between the uk and the European Union, it will be necessary, besides that, also to talk about internal and external security. What i dont want, it is not my position. It is leverage for the uk. Ina minute. It is what i want to say. I dont want a trade off between the economic discussion we will do and on the other hand the question of internal and external security. I dont think it is serious to make a trade off between. Germany has already indicated. Yes, but lets be honest, the important thing to do on the Security Issue from the european side is to create a European Defence union as fast as possible. You know the figures. But if you dont have britain, it devalues the whole thing. May i give the figures, 42 we spend in europe on military, and we are only capable to do 10 12 of the operations of the american army. I am not a mathematician, im a lawyer. But i know that it means, these figures, that we are three to four times less effective. And why are we less effective . Because we dont have a European Defence community. We delegate everything 28 times between the 28 member states. I think this whole discussion, also on security, internal and externally, is a good chance to create finally what we needed to already do decades ago, thats to create a European Defence union. Right, well. Thats also in the book. Yes. Lets get to the nitty gritty of negotiating a complex deal with the uk on its departure from the European Union. Just some very quickfire practical questions. You said recently that you thought getting a trade deal within the two year time frame was impossible. You stick to that . I think thats impossible, yeah. Everybody knows that its impossible. Well, they dont know its impossible in london. If you talk to the ministers responsible, they say its entirely possible. No, no, no, no. All the people that i am talking with know that very well. What were going to do in this iii 15 months, it is not two years, it is iii 15 months, because at the end of the process, before the end of 2018, we need to start a Consent Procedure in the European Parliament, because it is the European Parliament who has to give the green light for the final agreement. So we are going to start at the end of may, beginning ofjune, that gives us a timeframe of 1a or 15 months. What can you do in this 1a or 15 months, realistically . I think the Withdrawal Agreement is the first thing to do. Not an easy thing, i can tell you. To put it in Common Parlance that is the divorce agreement. Before you get to the new relationship, you have to do the divorce. Then you have also to define the new relationship in general terms. But do you do them in tandem . Because there is a big debate about whether the two sets of negotiations, one about the divorce arrangements and one about the new relationship. Take the treaty, the treaty, article 50, is very clear. The treaty says, first of all you start with your Withdrawal Agreement in the light of the framework of the future relationship. So you need to have an idea, not more than that, about your future relationship and then you can conclude your Withdrawal Agreement. To continue then. For example, if it is an fta, a Free Trade Agreement, it will take years. How many years in your opinion . I think the whole period of transition and the period of transition will be two years . Three years . So besides the two years, or the 1a or 15 months im talking about, you will need the whole transition period to conclude what will be the final agreement with the uk. Thats a realistic timeframe. There are cracks appearing, it seems to me, in the eus position on some of the key fundamental principles of a negotiated deal. Youve said the four freedoms that underpin the single market, theyre not going to ever be negotiated upon and there will be no cherry picking. Others have sent signals suggesting there can be sector by sector deals which, while britain leaves the single market, will allow britain preferential access to certain sectors of that single market. Is that possible . There will be no cherry picking. Nobody of the three institutions of the eu will accept that. Mrs may has indicated she wants to go out of the union, out the single market, out the customs union, out the European Court ofjustice and then saying, but that is an eu programme that interests me and that is a sector that interests me. That will not happen, sorry. Because then she has to take also the obligations, and the payments were linked to these advantages. You can never create a status outside the European Union which is more advantageous than to be a member of the European Union. It would not be fair towards the members of the European Union and to our taxpayers. You want to believe there can be no cherry picking, but others have sent a different message. Even mr barnier, who is, wi