from the president against a member of his own cabinet this week, calling the attorney general "wea k" and "beleaguered". all this on the very day he struggled to get a major piece of legislation on reforming health care through congress. and into this maelstrom walks the british international trade secretary, liam fox. he wants a big international trade agreement with the united states. he needs it desperately if brexit is to be a success. president trump rolled out senior republicans to meet dr fox, including the house speaker, paul ryan. but when trump tweets that a uk trade deal is big and exciting, who does he mean will benefit? before we came on air, i spoke to liam fox about trump, trade and — yes — chicken. we'll hear his thoughts in a moment. first, the big picture of what's at stake. at 4:16am this morning, the president of the united states‘ twitter account enthused over liam fox's visit. "our special relationship with the uk is going to be even better, the us trade representative and uk's liam fox met today to begin new chapter for stronger trade." a few hours later, so too did @realdonaldtrump — "working on major trade deal with the united kingdom, could be very big and exciting, jobs!" "the eu is very protectionist with the us, stop!" today there was good economic news for the government at home. bmw announced they will build the fully electric version of the mini at its cowley plant near oxford. welcome to town! but what of a deal with the us? the mood music may be positive, but washington has long—standing gripes with eu restrictions that they'd like rid off. first, there's what's been called chlorination chicken. the us wants to sell us birds washed in chlorine — they insist they do not pose a health risk to consumers. then there's hormone—boosted beef that the us insists is safe for consumers. the us wants to be able to sell us whisky aged less than three years — they call the current three—year requirement unwarranted. they complain that their corn exports are being hit because of unfair gm restrictions. and washington has uk government subsidies of rolls—royce engines in its sights too. plenty for the trade secretary to consider, and time is pressing. i spoke liam fox just hours after that president trump tweet about a "big, exciting" trade deal between the uk and the usa. i began by asking him which sectors or industries in the uk should be excited about a potential trade deal. we've been initiating a process of trade and investment working groups here, and there are four of them, one on continuity arrangements, that party to us by virtue of our membership of the eu, and we have to ensure they are replicated to ensure continuity of market access. we have been looking at areas where we can make short—term breakthroughs in liberalisation while we're still in the eu. in terms of business is all sectors, who are you thinking of? the third area is preparation for free trade agreements, and we have got working groups looking across the normal sectors to see where the opportunities might exist, and then our fourth group is looking at where we can work bilaterally to improve market access for both the us and the uk and across the global markets. so it is not a single focus at this point, it is great to have the enthusiasm of the american side in the process, and it has been very evident in the warmth with which we have been received here, but we are still a long way from being able to set out details of where we think the major breakthroughs would come, that is why we have officials. we know the treasury has asked you to show how all this free trade will bring more value than any trade that is lost from the eu. have you produced that? well, i don't accept the premise of the question, because it makes the assumption that we will lose value from our trade with the european union. well, we have to lose either the eu deal or the american deal. no, we don't, we don't have to lose anything at all. so you think we can have both? we haven't begun our negotiations with the eu yet on a future free trade agreement, and we begin from a very good position of zero tariffs and absolute regulatory equivalence. so that, technically, removes a lot of the barriers to difficulty. we are aiming that we will have a very open and comprehensive trading deal with the european union, and our aim is to give all our businesses the same rights of access they have today. now, how possible that will be, we won't know until we begin the negotiations in october. at the same time, we will want to see how we can get increased access to other markets, including the united states, but perhaps even more crucially how we can work with countries like the united states to open up the global economy in things like services, which will matter a lot to the economy. but your belief is that no value will be lost? well, i hope that no value will be lost. that is what we're aiming for. that is not the same thing. and of course it makes no sense to have an assumption that you will be at one end of the spectrum rather than the other, so what we're aiming for is an open, liberal, comprehensive agreement with the european union, which is in both our interests to have — both for european producers as well as british producers. and at the same time to have a good agreement with the united states and to open up the global economy, and the reason for that is the global economy is sluggish. global trade is growing at only 1.3% at the present time, we must get that up, because we've got to see a more open trading environment or our exporters will suffer. trade is abstract, it is complicated, and i know that you accuse us, the media, of obsessing over chicken, but the reason we talk about chicken is it is tangible, people actually understand that as an issue. so is it true that we would change our regulations, our food standards, to accommodate a deal with america? we've no intentions of reducing standards, as we said on a number of occasions, we think the british standards and protection for the consumer... so you would then rule out chlorine—washed chicken? it's a very simple thing. well, there is no health issue with that, the european union has said that is perfectly safe. so we could accept that, then? the issue lies around some of the secondary issues of animal welfare, and it is perfectly reasonable for people to raise that, but it will come much further down the road. we will be looking at those issues much further down the road. but this is something people can understand, will you say it is fine, we don't need the regulation that the eu currently has, we will be prepared to accept whatever the chicken is washed in because we believe it is the right way to go, it makes food cheaper and it is the right deal with the us? we will want to make sure that scientific advice ensures proper protection for british consumers, because dropping our standards... well, it doesn't, the eu has a preventative strategy, so it doesn't believe that chlorine—washed chicken is the right thing to have in the eu. will i change under liam fox's trade deal? i can rule out that we will be dropping our standards on consumer protection or environmental protection or on animal welfare, these are reasonable things for people to look at, but in terms of where we will be on specifics by the time we finish a free—trade agreement which could be two or three years by the time it is concluded, depending on the rest of our relationship with the eu, it is too early say, but as a general principle we are not going to be the low regulation alternative that some people have suggested. chicken is just one of a list, and we could also be looking at gm crops — will we be accepting gm crops, hormone fed beef? you are asking me the same question in a different way. these are elements that we will look at further down, these are elements in the agricultural section of an agreement. but we could be in a process that will now accept gm crops or hormone fed beef. we will want to look at what science tells us, what is the best protection for our consumers and the environment, and we will look at that across government. we are not going tojump to conclusions right now, because that would be an inappropriate way to carry out a negotiation. the us wants us to stop subsidising rolls—royce engines made in derby, will we do that? it is a negotiation, and we want to see what we can get from the americans, they will want to get things from us. we will not be giving away things that are detrimental to uk producers, our economy or consumers, why would we do that? the whole idea of brexit, the line that we were fed was taking back control — now we are in a position where you cannot rule out that we might have chlorine—washed chicken, gm crops, hormone fed beef, why are we in a position where we seem to be going along with whatever a superpower does, whatever principles or standards or lower standards america is suggesting we might have to accept? that is the question people want to know, if we are taking back control. you are suggesting we have to stick with whatever the european union tells us in terms of legacy. we will make the right decisions for the uk, we will decide for the uk what is best, not what is best for the us, for the european union, what is best for the uk, and all of those areas... and the us model may be better than eu regulations. the british model will be the best model for britain. liam fox. back now to the political storm here in washington itself, where the white house is continuing its relentless twitter pounding of the attorney general, jeff sessions. last week, the president said he wished he'd never have appointed mr sessions if he'd known that he'd recuse himself from the russia investigation. and this morning at 6am, the social—media assault continued. all this as donald trump struggled to try and get one of his most important pieces of domestic legislation, on health care, through congress. mark urban has been watching the events of the day. despite a packed legislative agenda and multiple international challenges, the stand—off between the president and those investigating him continues. today, he fuelled doubts about the future of his own principal law officer. i am disappointed in the attorney general. he should not have recused himself — almost immediately after he took office. and if he was going to recused themselves, he should have told me prior to taking office, and i would have picked somebody else. so i think that is a bad thing, not for the president, but for the presidency. i think it is unfair to the presidency. and that is the way i feel. the president at least one of his early—morning tweet storms, covering a variety of subjects, and attacking his own attorney general, saying he has taken a very weak position on hillary clinton crimes, where are the leakers? it followed a tweet yesterday where he asked rhetorically, why aren't the committees and investigators and of course our beleaguered attorney general looking into crooked hillary's crimes and russia relations? this is just outright bullying ofjeff sessions at this point, we have seen it for several days running, and the president almost appearing to want to force him to quit, to resign, rather than be forced into another awkward position of demanding his resignation or sending him his walking papers. that touched a nerve with many republicans on the hill, wherejeff sessions served for 20 years as a senator along side men like lindsey graham, a persistent republican trump critic who responded to the latest tweets with his own saying... so is the republican caucus fraying? well, the house majority leader was today still backing his president. it is up to the president to decide on his personnel decisions and any fallout from that, if he has concerns about anyone in the administration, i am sure he will talk with them directly. speaker ryan, like many on the hill, wants to try and maintain momentum on the platform he was elected on, with the repeal and replacement of president obama's health—care plan ranking high on that agenda. today, a senator vote so narrow that john mccain had to come in from his sick bed carried that forward, delivering a fillip for the president. i hope we can continue to depend on each other, to learn how to trust each other again, and by so doing better, save the people who elected us. stop listening to the bombastic loudmouths on the radio and television and the internet. to hell with them! they don't want anything done for the public good. our incapacity is their livelihood. let's trust each other. let's return to regular order. the motion to proceed on health care hasjust passed... but the legislative game of pass the parcel continues between two republican—controlled chamber is hooked on the rhetoric of repealing obamacare but scared of the consequences of depriving millions of their care. this is not the end of the road, it may be a near—term win for trump today, but there are significant differences, this is one sixth of the us economy, tens of millions of people poised to lose their health care under any form of this bill, and this is proving deeply unpopular — this bill only had the support of around 20% of the american people, whether or not the republicans have the calculus right today, a lot of people are questioning. that battle will call soon for summer's congressional recess, but the rush of probe will go one, and tonight the new communications director at the white house said the president will soon come to a decision about the future of his attorney general, jeff sessions. mark urban. well, earlier i spoke to one of the few political experts who predicted donald trump's victory in last year's election, professor allan lichtman of the american university here in washington. he got the last nine election is correct and previously stood for the democrats. nine months later, he's predicting the end of the trump presidency and has written a book arguing his position, the case for impeachment. i began by asking him how he reached both his predictions. my prediction of a donald trump victory was based upon a scientific method, studying all american elections going back to 1860. my prediction of a donald trump impeachment, of course, could not be based on a mathematical model, because there haven't been enough examples of impeachment in us history. but my prediction of a donald trump impeachment, in my book, the case for impeachment, was based on a deep study of the history of impeachments, the basis for impeachments, donald trump's record as a businessman, and donald trump's record during the first two or three months of his administration. that was enough to point me towards what seemed to be an inevitable end to the presidency in the first term. and are you suggesting that impeachment is imminent? well, impeachment takes time. let's not forget that bill clinton wasn't impeached until well into the fifth year of his presidency. richard nixon didn't resign until more than five and a half years of his presidency. so i wouldn't say impeachment is right around the corner, but i do think it's going to come, and when it will come will be when republicans come to realise that this president is a liability to their political survival. the lichtman rule of politics is that the first requisite for any incumbent officeholder is personal survival — not loyalty to someone else. impeachment, though, is not a thing — it is a vote, it takes people to back it. that's right. impeachment is a vote by a majority — not a supermajority — of the us house of representatives, and, of course, republicans control the us house. but it would only take about two dozen republicans to defect from donald trump to get a majority vote on impeachment, that's only about 10% of republicans in the house. so is there a loyalty still from the republican party towards donald trump? where do they stand on this? i think his party stands on a knife edge. on the one hand, they desperately want to support their president, and they don't want to see an ugly impeachment process. on the other hand, they realise that a president whose approval rating is in the 36—40% range is a liability to their party and could be a liability to their own personal re—election. i don't think republicans are at impeachment yet, but it wouldn't take all that much to push them over the line. ifjeff sessions is removed or goes, do you think that will trigger revolt in the party base? no, i don't think the firing ofjeff sessions or the pushing ofjeff sessions out by itself would be enough for the party, the republicans to move towards impeachment. what might move them towards impeachment would be that if the firing or resignation ofjeff sessions was a prelude to the firing of the special counsel, robert mueller. that could push republicans over the line, although i'm not even certain that would do it. so we are getting back to, essentially, the russia scandal or the russia question here. is your sense that impeachment would come from treason? i think we are treading close to possible treason. russia attacked the united states — it wasn't a military attack, but it was an attack nonetheless, not only through hacking of democratic e—mails but through the use of russian state—controleld media and through the use of trolls and bots to poison our political discourse. and if any of trump's team was involved in colluding with the russians in that attack, that arguably is treason. if trump himself knew about it, even if he didn't participate, that's another crime called misprision of treason, the failure to report treason, and if trump himself was involved, i believe a strong case could be made for treason. and treason is a very serious charge — no sitting high public official of the united states has ever been charged with treason in our history. you write in the book about trump's vulnerabilities — what do you see as his vulnerabilities? i wrote in the case for impeachment that a russian sword of damocles is hanging over this administration, it's hanging on a very thin thread now. that meeting with donald trump junior, jared kushner and paul manafort with a multiplicity of russian actors is, in my mind, pretty powerful circumstantial proof of collusion. the purpose of the meeting was to get from the russian government dirt on hillary clinton, their opponent. that alone, the willingness to take that meeting, the eagerness to take that meeting, is certainly strong circumstantial evidence of collusion. but people listening to this will be possibly saying, "there is a man who is clearly a democrat, who is creating, if you like, rumour for political spite." nonsense — i have been predicting elections since 1980, and i have predicted about as many republican victories as democratic victories. if i was just, you know, a flag for the democratic party, i never would have done that. in fact, i've lost all my democratic friends because i predicted donald trump's victory — i even got a note from him acknowledging that prediction, saying, "good call, professor." in addition, there have been plenty of presidents with whom i have disagreed with their policies, but i've never before predicted a president was going to get impeached. i'm joined now by the republican strategist chris neiweem. just before we came on air we should tell viewers the us house of representatives had overwhelmingly backed new sanctions against russia, 419—3. the question now is well donald trump have to go a long with the overwhelming vote for stronger sanctions or will he resist it? it's always difficult to predict what president trump does, his behaviour and his actions are always, they come directly from him and sometimes he disagrees with his republican party, he came to power in a very diverse way. it will restrict some of his capabilities especially in dealing with russia. i think he will think it over but we could see resistance based on his past actions. looking at what happened today, the health care, not a bell, a bill about a bill which was essentially about appealing obamacare, it passed by a whisker. that after ruling out poor john mccain who has just undergone brain surgery, this is not a man who looks in control at the moment. i think that would be correct, it's a thin margin and we expected that. the health care legislation affects every state different, the united states sent by design was supposed to be more deliberate. i win is a win so if they can get over the threshold and get it it's all that matters. when i heard from the independent senator angus king this morning he said let me give you a brief synopsis of what we understand the health care bill this afternoon and he paused and that was it. nobody understood what they were even voting on. that is a tragic position for a new president to be in six months in. it's definitely a very interesting political dynamic. also remember the united states senate when you look at procedures and boats, voting to proceed to the vote, we need to see the final vote on the text. i think it's going to be close but ultimately this is why lawmaking is hard. he is calling on the loyalty of the party right now at the same time he is trying to fire his own attorney general, and man who's he appointed just six months ago, one of his earliest and most loyal followers who gave up the good senate position to be there. how do we understand what is going on in that dynamic and what other republicans should make of it? trying to guess the behaviour of president trump is very difficult. don't guess or predict that then, tell me how people should behave in terms of their loyalty within the party? everyone needs to think with their priorities and what they think should happen and their own integrity but this president does have a business negotiation background, he is high standards and wants to see things a certain way. he was being cautious and if he had nothing to hide let those investigations go on and fall where they fall, i think it was peculiar but that is where we are right now and we'll have to see where it plays out and if he retains the attorney general. at the moment it seems like he will. there must be people like you, republicans and critically people in the senate and the house who are asking themselves in all faith how much longer can we support a president whose actions we might not even understand let alone support. ifjeff sessions is fired or encouraged to go is that tipping point? it's an interesting case study in american politics and democracy because this president went to the people and that is where he got his mandate and that is who elected him. before the election he was beating up republicans and democrats with both hands and won. it comes down to if the people continue to support him and if you will continue to have a working relationship to get the agenda through. i have never seen this political dynamic, it's very unique and makes for interesting analysis at least we can say that. so when a distinguished professor like allan lichtman who has called the last nine presidential wins says that he imagines the impeachment of donald trump not imminently, not september, but down the line, you have to listen to that presumably? i think you need to listen to it and look at it but with everyone in the universe looking for something on russian collusion we'll find out whether it is collusion delusion or substantial and that talk about if there is something there. the government has to get things done legislatively. chris neiweem, thank you for coming in. good to be with you. let's just pause the discussion about donald trump here in the united states forjust a moment and take a look at american policy towards the fight against hiv in south africa. pepfar is the multibillion—dollar us fund which has saved thousands, if not millions, of lives there fighting the aids virus. but doctors are warning that they face a difficult choice. american policy now prohibits funding of such schemes if they might have anything to do with abortion. it's become known as the "global gag" rule, as karen allen reports. a little over 20 years since the dawn of democracy, south africa projects the image of a country on the move. but it has the largest number of people in the world living with hiv aids — 7 million of them. yet the disease is no longer a death sentence that it was for previous generations, thanks in part to millions of dollars of us government aid. you and i slept without condoms so all your exes are pretty much in our relationship. one of the great success stories of how that us money is spent is this tv show. what is the point of this clinic if you can't help me? you can try the... but if the storyline strays into reproductive health or abortion issues, the producers have to look for money elsewhere. it's all about complying with tight us funding rules and those rules have just got tighter. next is the policy... with the stroke of a pen president trump has enacted what's been dubbed the global gag rule. it means that millions of dollars of us money for hiv is potentially at risk if it's linked in any way to abortion. hiv prevalence in south africa is high. there is a lot of work that goes towards it. and this is work that we want to continue happening. so i think this is where the main problem is, that we are going to have to choose one, you know? are we going to choose to keep fighting hiv in the country, or are we going to choose to give women the rights that they have according to the constitution? unlike many other countries in africa, abortion is legal in south africa. but with high levels of stigma almost half of all terminations are done as backstreet abortions. there is anecdotal evidence that the pills used to induce an abortion are stolen from state hospitals by members of staff then smuggled out onto the black market. with the introduction of the us rules, there's a fear about a contraction of services here, forcing more women to seek abortions out on the street. here injohannesburg you don't have to be a detective to discover where to purchase abortion drugs on the black market. we've taken our hidden cameras, with an actress posing as a client, and arranged a meeting with the man. watch the character in the dark jacket, he's the dealer. he tries to steer her into a shop to hand over the pills. it then emerges that the man sitting down is in fact his accomplice. they just want to make the sale so he slips the drug from up his sleeve and then in minutes the pair are gone. the actress hands us the packet of five pills, which she was instructed to take all at once. the cost of the transaction? £30. we took the drugs to an accredited abortion clinic. these are the pills that we picked up on the street, 500 rand, £30. are those the right drugs? yes, they are the right drugs but the dosage, no, it's not. we give clients four pills and this being five is an overdose. campaigners worry that with the shadow cast over funding for all areas of health, including family planning, more unwanted pregnancies and more terminations are inevitable. botched abortions are one of the biggest causes of maternal death in the world. the new global gag rule is only likely to make that worse. and for hiv aids, which still claims millions of lives each year, there could also be unintended consequences. even though i tested hiv—positive, i don't think it's a barrier for me not to achieve my goals. this woman, an aspiring young businesswoman, owns her survival in part to the billions of us tax dollars pumped into fighting hiv. the us contributes two thirds of all bilateral funding worldwide. i come draw blood every six months and collect my medication every three months. but the money to keep her healthy now has conditions attached. it cannot be traced to abortion services in any shape or form. i don't see how people can sit in washington and think they can then influence me on that micro level. i am restricted in terms of giving you health information that you have a right to for you to make informed choice. so it interferes with the doctor—patient relationship in a very, very, very negative manner. the problem with singling out abortion is that modern day health care is all integrated, whether it's children's vaccinations or sexual health. activists warn they could all be affected by this rule simply because they're on the same site. with a children's clinic here and reproductive health and hiv services down the corridor, this one—stop shop is the gold standard that international health agencies are trying to promote. but there is a fear that the global gag rule could impose guilt by association for services that have got nothing to do with abortion. thousands of miles from here president trump's signed into law rules which some view as an assault on south africa's sovereignty. but turning the country's back on the biggest donor in the world may also be tough. it's a delicate balance. the taxpayers in the united states have a right. and the health care workers in south africa and the women in south africa have a right to also attain their highest level of care based on the laws of their country. many believe the us is overstepping the mark, threatening to damage sweeping gains made to improving the health of millions of people around the world. self—sufficiency still beyond the horizons of many african states. karen allen there. i'm joined now by two seasoned trump watchers — susan glasser from the news website politico and james kirchick from the brookings institute. very nice to have both of you. if i could start with you, we have heard a lot this week about russia, we have had jared kushner two days running in those hearings, we will be hearing from paul manafort the former communications director, tomorrow. allan lichtman was telling me that trump could be the first president found guilty of treason. i think that is a really great charge to be throwing around. treason is a very specific definition in the united states, you have to be aiding and abetting an enemy of the united states with whom we are at war. russia is an enemy of this country, but we're not at war with them, so i think the rush to that sort of conclusion, the use that language is really ill tempered and inaccurate. i'm not trying to defend donald trump, his position on russia and what the campaign did. i thought what we saw during the campaign, trump speaking openly of his admiration for vladimir putin, calling on the russians to hack hillary clinton, it was abominable, unpatriotic, un—american, but it does not rise to the level of treason. susan glasser, over to you, do you think his critics are getting carried away on this one? smoke with no fire? first of all, we are at the beginning stage of multiple different investigations, including, most seriously, the fbi and special counsel investigation headed by bob mueller. jamie makes an important point, to throw around words like that is probably not constructive for opponents of president trump. the impeachment word has been used almost since noon on january the 20th, when donald trump became president, and the bottom line is, even if that were to be the outcome, we're talking about years of investigations and a very difficult political process on capitol hill before anything of that kind would happen. you get the sense from talking to lots of people who are understandably confused, they think, when will impeachment happen? next month or something? democrats are confused as to why republicans are not more outraged by any sense of collusion or dealings with russia, let's say, watched you make of that? —— what do you. as someone who has been very critical of the republicans and the stance they have taken over the past year and a half, really, on russia, i have to say that they are partly right to be a little sceptical of the outrage being expressed by democrats. if you look at the record of the obama administration on russia over the last eight years, starting with the recent policy that began only six months after russia invaded georgia, we had a procession of moves that were basically feckless in dealing with russia. in 2012, barack obama mocked mitt romney, the presidential candidate, for saying that russia was our number one geopolitical threat, and now a lot of republicans are looking at democrats, who laughed at them four years ago is for being these retrograde cold warriors, lecturing conservatives and republicans that they are all pawns of vladimir putin. a lot of conservatives are very sceptical. would you agree with that, that actually, the ill ease started with obama and all the concessions, or all the weakness, that putin saw in him? i think you have to go back much farther than that. the bottom line is that george w bush first encountered vladimir putin as president back in 2001 and said he was a man he could do business with. there have been a long arc of four presidents, because bill clinton also had a brief overlap with vladimir putin. it's fair to say that both democratic and republican presidents have come in believing that they could work more closely with russia, that we had national interests that would converge on key issues around the world, and all of them have found themselves disillusioned. donald trump is a huge outlier in that he is the only one of them who has come in fawning over vladimir putin's anti—democratic tendencies, fawning over putin as a leader, and basically saying that he admires him and wants to work with him. inside united states, in a partisan sense, it's both democrats and republicans who have an enormous amount of hypocrisy to go around. both have switched their positions based on nothing to do with russia but having to do with the partisan politics of russia changing in the united states, so that does make it, i think, very complicated in trying to sort through, but both parties have enough hypocrisy to go around on this issue. 0k. we're running out of time, so big picture, jamie, six months into the trump presidency, if someone said to you, how is it going now, ‘cause i talk to members of the administration who say, ignore the tweets, the bombastic side of trump, he is getting on with the job and it is working — is that how it seems from inside washington? i think in ths bubble of washington, things can seem worse than they do out in the country. that said, donald trump has not really accomplished any major pieces of legislation so far. he is attacking his own attorney general, there are rumours now that his secretary of state, rex tillerson, might be resigning some time before the end of the year. so it's not going very good for him. i'm not going to say impeachment is on the horizon, that is being hysterical, but it is not going well for him. thank you both very much indeed. that's almost it for tonight. but after sean spicer‘s departure from the white house last week, we leave you with president trump's new director of communication, the former goldman sachs investment manager anthony scaramucchi, aka the mooch. the president's fake news media enemies are already trying to make the mooch look stupid. a very good evening to you. the message for the next few days is that there will be rain at times but not all the time and that the message for tomorrow. just about all of us will have rain, but there will be dry weather as well, it's just about picking your moments to go out. low pressure bringing cloud from the west. as it continues to seek and in western areas overnight we have outbreaks of rain spreading across the south—west, wales and northern ireland, eventually the south—west scotland. in these areas it will be wet tomorrow morning. eastern scotland and eastern england having a dry and for a time bright start before this wet and windy weather sweeps eastwards. then things brighten up in the west. the northern ireland act much of scotla nd northern ireland act much of scotland are brighter story by tomorrow afternoon. some sunny spells and showers. on the cool side. notice persistent rain on the farm north of scotland. brightening up farm north of scotland. brightening up as the day goes on in northern england, but for east yorkshire, lincolnshire and in the east anglia and the south—east things stay grey in the afternoon. the rain works across south—east england and it should be light and patchy. all the while brighter skies developing for wales and south—west england. it could get to 20 degrees in exeter, despite the strength of the breeze. through wednesday night we lose the rain from eastern areas. a lot of dry weather to take us into thursday morning of but heavy showers getting going in northern ireland and western scotland. for thursday that's what we end up with. a day of sunshine and showers. low pressure still in charge. the deep low like this isn't necessarily what we expect to see on the weather charts in latejuly. expect to see on the weather charts in late july. it expect to see on the weather charts in latejuly. it means quite a blustery day, some sunny spells and showers, some heavy and thundery. frequent up to the north—west, but even some showers driven through on the breeze in parts of wales and southern england and the temperatures nothing to write home about. 16 in aberdeen, 20 london. for friday, essentially it is more of the same. low pressure still up to the north—west. late in the day we have more persistent rain pushing on across the south—west of england and wales. that should move through during the overnight period on friday into saturday. through saturday morning the rain clears away and what that leaves us with for the weekend is a familiar tale. rain not all the time, a mixture of sunny spells and showers. check the forecast on the bbc website. that's it from me. good night. welcome to newsday on bbc news. i am sharanjit leyl in singapore. the headlines: what are the vatican's most seniorfigures, cardinal headlines: what are the vatican's most senior figures, cardinal pell, has just entered a court facing sex abuse allegations. donald trump doubles down on his attack on his one—time friend and close ally, jon sessions, whose future hangs in the balance. —— jeff. sessions, whose future hangs in the balance. -- jeff. itold sessions, whose future hangs in the balance. -- jeff. i told you before that i am very disappointed in. but time will tell. also in the headlines, charlie gard's parents have asked that he be allowed home to die. the hospital