hello and welcome to 100 days. the white house says it's not a ban, it's a pause. immigration officials insist that they were well prepared and only a few hundred people have been denied access to the us. the trump administration in damage—control mode, putting national security officials and the head of homeland security out to explain the controversial ban. this is not, i repeat not, a ban on muslims. the homeland security mission is to safeguard the american people, our homeland, our values, and religious liberty is one of our most fundamental and treasured values. out of a job, the acting attorney general sally yates is sacked. she'd questioned the legality of the ban. also on the programme, donald trump and the state visit. the uk government still taking plenty of flack over the invite, and the travel ban the president introduced. the home secretary concedes the ban provides a "potential propaganda tool" to so—called islamic state. isil and daesh will use any opportunity they can to make difficulties to make the environment they want to radicalise people. and decision made — but is britain any closer to leaving the eu?

parliament begins the debate on triggering the formal exit process. hello, welcome to 100 days. i'm katty kay in washington, christian fraser's in london. there is no room for dissent. the message from the white house to american civil servants — if you don't agree with president trump's agenda, then it is time to leave. and the first to go was the attorney general sally yates, who refused to enforce the president's temporary ban on refugees and visa holders from seven majority muslim countries. in her place, mr trump named this man — dana boente. he'll run thejustice department until senatorjeff sessions is confirmed by the senate. in the past couple of hours, the secretary for homeland security, john kelly, has been taking questions about the president's immigration order. he insisted it is not a ban on

almost than is coming to the united states. the vast majority of the 1.7 billion muslims that live on this planet, the vast majority of them, all other things being equal, have access to the united states, and a relatively small number right now are being held up fora period relatively small number right now are being held up for a period of time until we can take a look at what the procedures are. i would be less than honest if i told you that some of those countries that are currently on the list may not be taken currently on the list may not be ta ke n off currently on the list may not be taken off the list any time soon. they are countries that are in various states of collapse, as an example. but ultimately we would like to see all those countries taken like to see all those countries ta ke n off like to see all those countries taken off the list. john kelly, the man in charge of american borders. jon sopel is with

us, are american borders. jon sopel is with us, are we american borders. jon sopel is with us, are we right to say this looks like damage control from the white house? there are accusations that this is chaos, confusion, amateur hour. it is day four since the announcement, and they are still putting up spokesman to explain what the ban is, what it isn't, but it is a pause, and that was raised at the briefing with the white house spokesman. donald trump tweeted it was a temporary. that was pointed out to a spokesman, who said, no no, the president was using the words that you use. so we can't choose his own? he has called it a temporary? the secretary of homeland security has called a day polls. they seem to be at sixes and sevens, and the extraordinary drama of last night, the acting attorney general accused of betrayal, what a word to use, extraordinary! i still think they are trying to get it sorted out, they are trying to get people on board, and there was a profound lack of consultation. leave aside whether

you agree with the policy or not, the manager of its implementation was shambolic. the speaker of the house of representatives, paul ryan, said it was regrettable that the roll—out was so confusing, wish it had not been catching out dual nationals and iraqis working for the us government, but is the gop more broadly on board with the president here? i'm not sure, let's wait and see how this plays out. if this is seen to be an example of donald trump relying on a very small coterie of white house appointees who don't know what they are doing, then i think the gop will strike back and say, you can't run government like this, you have to do it differently, and if it turns out right, maybe they will sit on hands and be quiet. christian? i can tell you that the europeans consider it a ban, some interesting comments denied from one of the most senior figures in brussels, donald tusk, the european council president. he

says this puts into question the la st says this puts into question the last 70 years of american foreign policy and the transatlantic bond. how will washington respond to that? well, i think that washington won't be too worried, frankly, about what donald tusk is saying. i don't think there is any great attachments to there is any great attachments to the european union in a way that barack 0bama made it absolutely plain when he was president that it was in the strategic interests of the united states to have a very strong european union. christian, i just dug out what donald trump said to me the day after brexit, and i questioned him at his golf course in scotla nd questioned him at his golf course in scotland on one of my more surreal reporting assignments! i asked him, would you support the break—up of the european union? he replied, it looks like it is on its way, and we will see what happens. it's hardly sounded like a ringing endorsement of the eu by the man who is now the president of the united states. jon sopel president of the united states. jon sopel, thanks for coming in.

the president is clearly frustrated that some of his cabinet members haven't been confirmed. among his latest tweets was this message: "the democrats are delaying my cabinet picks for purely political reasons." "they have nothing going but to obstruct." "now have an 0bama ag." that was around the time he was sacking her. and then came this tweet. "when will the democrats give us our attorney general and rest of cabinet?" "they should be ashamed of themselves!" "no wonder dc soesn‘t work!" a lot of people might agree with that, by the way! i've been speaking to senator amy klobuchar, the democratic senator for minnesota, and started by asking why she's objecting to mr trump's immigration ban. well, i think the first thing, of course, is that this has created chaos. you have refugees all over the world that have played by the rules, that have waited, sometimes for years, to get in, and they were just ready to get on a plane either the next day or a week later, and they've been denied access. it's so arbitrary.

then you have people with work visas, students on visas. you have people frozen in travel that can't go for a visit to a sick parent in a hospital. itjust doesn't make sense. the second piece of this is a security one, and i think that was best articulated by republican senators mccain and graham, who said this is a self—inflicted wound when it comes to fighting terrorism and trying to work positively with moderates in muslim countries. this does not bode well for us in terms of trying to reach out to moderate elements, when we basically shutdown our doors, and that is what, i think, is the result of this, and it's certainly how it's been perceived around the world. but as you know, senator, the majority of americans, two opinion polls injanuary point this out, do seem to like the idea of tightening america's borders. you come from a state, minnesota, that has a lot of muslim immigrants, i'm sure people there have concerns too, and even since last friday we repeatedly hear from trump voters

that they like what the president is doing. i think first of all, in my state we are very proud of our somali population, 100,000 strong. we have the second biggest hmong population, and depending on how you ask these questions, if you couch them as security, people do get concerned. but when you couch them are saying, this is someone who is working in the hospital, they've worked there for ten years, should they be allowed to go home and visit their mom, you're going to get a lot different answer. and i think part of this is that the effect of this is brand—new people are starting to see what it means, and i think there is universal agreement from a number of republican senators that, as rob portman said, the vetting rule wasn't vetted. and if anything, no matter if you're a trump voter or a clinton voter, and we're not going to relegislate that, one must agree that this wasn't done right and that governing by tweet and a quick resolution where you don't consult with law enforcement result in havoc, and that is what we've seen.

0k, senator, while i have you here, let me ask you about sally yates, the deputy attorney general who was fired last night. you're a former prosecutor yourself. the white house has the law on its side on this one, doesn't it? they were in their right to have the executive order, and they are in their rights to fire sally yates for what she did. they do have that right, but let's step back and talk about if it is right. first of all, if they had consulted with her, with her vast experience, 30 years as a prosecutor, maybe this order would have been different. maybe it wouldn't have been delayed, maybe they could have done some of these technology changes they may want to do without hurting people that have been playing by the rules. secondly, the way he did it, to vilify the woman, sally yates, who literally has been a prosecutor for republican, democratic presidents, she prosecuted the olympic park bomber case. i worked with her on human trafficking. she got 84 votes in the us senate.

she has been very popular in all the jobs that she has held. she is not some kind of liberal activist, she's a career prosecutor, and then to say that she betrayed the department of justice, betrayed, in effect, her country, when she was dismissed, i think that just went a step too far and is really part of a pattern that we've seen coming out of the white house. 0k, let me ask you about the supreme court pick, finally, that's going to come up tonight. as a democrat, in the senate, who is on the judiciary committee, are you going to oppose whoever president trump nominates? well, this is a solemn responsibility for someone on the judiciary committee, and we will have a hearing, obviously scheduled by the republicans. we will have a hearing, and that will be our opportunity to ask a host of questions that influence americans in their everyday lives. and so one of the most important things to remember here is while all these nominations,

whether it is the secretary of state or the attorney general, are on a 51—vote majority margin, the supreme court, by the us senate rules, is a 60—vote margin. so that means that you need democratic and republican votes, and i think that is very important for your viewers to understand — this is a very important difference. and it better be someone in the mainstream to have democrats even consider voting for them, but i think right now people are waiting to see who it is. i'm a former prosecutor — you look at the evidence, waiting to see who it is, having the hearing and making decisions. senator amy klobuchar, thank you. we will talk about that nomination ina we will talk about that nomination in a second. mr trump's new immigration policy may be setting off protests at home and abroad, but it is worth remembering that a large portion of the electorate is behind the president. and of course the man sent out every day to defend the president's policy is white house press secretary sean spicer. he has been speaking in the last few minutes and was questioned

about how much dissent the president would tolerate from within his administration. the president was very clear during the campaign, whether it was economic security or national security, but he has an agenda that he articulated very, very clearly to the american people. and that... hold on, thank you. and that it is hisjob to lay that vision out and the people that he appoints and nominates and announces as staff members or cabinet level members or agency heads, theirjob is to fulfil that, and if they don't like it, then they shouldn't take the job. but it is the president's agenda that we are fulfilling here. sean spicer speaking a few moments ago. let's talk to councilman joe borelli, who served as co—chair of mr trump's campaign in new york. let me ask you about this idea of dissent, do you agree with sean spicer that if civil servants, for example in the state department, don't agree with this immigration ban, then they should simply leave

the state department? well, let's be clear about the acting aj's position, it is not a protected position... i wasn't asking about the attorney general, i was asking about civil servants in the state department. well, look, they should work under the direction of their bosses. the only way we can effectively measure a president and vote for them based on actions is whether their agenda is able to be carried out. if we allow dissension in the ranks of executive agencies, how can we effectivelyjudge whether the president's agenda was good or bad and vote accordingly in the future? let me ask you about the immigration ban, what paul ryan said about it this morning, whether you agree with it or not, whether you think it will make america safer or not, do you agree with paul ryan that it was rolled out in a way that was regrettable and at times chaotic? well, yeah, and i think you

pointed it out earlier, anything that has to be explained for a numberof that has to be explained for a number of days after it has been rolled out, certainly, you could find probably half a dozen faults. it doesn't take away from the ultimate policy, but when you have this much confusion regarding this implementation, and some of it actually leads to the protests and some of the anger amongst the population, i think it is safe to say that the roll—out was done poorly. i am sure you are aware of the protests outside the country, 1.7 million people in britain have signed a petition objecting to the invitation that has been extended to the president, this state visit, and there is a debate slated for next week in the parliament — are you at all concerned about some of the protest you have seen among allies like the uk? i'm not terribly, and i think the meeting between prime minister may and donald trump last week went fairly well. i hope that the british public does not sort of idea or bends to the will of the

people who signed that petition. i think it is in both country's best interests going forward. we are both ina interests going forward. we are both in a transformative stage, facing fundamental changes, and i think we can do it better together. so i don't see why the british public would be so outraged, but we shouldn't be surprised — this was a debate that was happening in parliament when mrtrump debate that was happening in parliament when mr trump was a candidate. maybe they are outraged because the prime minister has made clear she does not support the ag, home secretary amber rudd was talking about it earlier today. isil and daesh will use any opportunity they can to make difficulties to make the environment they want to radicalise people, to bring them over to their side, so it is a propaganda opportunity for them potentially. a propaganda opportunity for so—called islamic state, an own goal. there is a propaganda opportunity with drone strikes, a propaganda opportunity with anything. to say that if donald trump of the american government

didn't go through with this ban, somehow isis would pack up and take up somehow isis would pack up and take up fishing or something is preposterous. this is not a problem thatis preposterous. this is not a problem that is going to go away, and it is not going to go away by bending to the desires or appease the people that wheel to be fighting against. sol that wheel to be fighting against. so i certainly disagree with the home secretary. good to get your thoughts, stay with us, we want to get your thoughts on some other things in the programme. katty, one of the more important decisions donald trump will make in his first 100 days will be his pick for the supreme court. the ninth chair has been empty for a year since the death of the conservative justice antonin scalia. so this is the current line—up in the court. we have left one box empty. if we were to divide them on the issue of roe v wade, five are pro choice, three are against. so whoever trump picks might not make an immediate difference on that particular issue. but if we put the oldest judges on the top row, three of them are around 80 years old. in fact, ruth bader ginsburg there, who was one of president

clinton's picks, is 83. so it's not beyond possibility, katty, that at some point in the next four years mr trump will get another pick, and that could tip the balance decisively. well, the issue of abortion is certainly important to the vice president, mike pence, a practising christian with conservative values and a key influence over the social policy of this administration. and the supreme courtjustices are possibly the nine most powerful people in this country, and they are there for life. president trump will leave neither four years or aide yea rs' leave neither four years or aide years' time, and all of these executive orders could potentially be overturned by the next president. these justices are there for life, and as you pointed out, one has been and as you pointed out, one has been a there for 30 years. they will have a there for 30 years. they will have a huge impact on american social and political life for decades to come. antonin scalia was a reagan pick, so

it shows you how long they have been on the bench. mike pence is certainly a key influence on this administration. 0ur correspondentjeremy cooke went to his home state of indiana, to speak to his critics — and supporters — to find out more. it's morning in middle america, and the pro—life lobby are already on the streets. pray for the closing of this abortion clinic and all of them in our country. we have help for you, can we help? every woman arriving at this abortion clinic is approached and asked to reconsider. did you say you came for birth control? no. abortion is still illegal under us federal law, but as indiana governor, mike pence was committed to restricting access. i think the reason that you see donald trump in power with mike pence is because of the pro—life movement. for believers likejodie smith, abortion is not a key issue — it is the only issue.

mike pence, you think, will be steadfast? he will be steadfast, we know he will. he is very committed to life and always has been. this is not anything new for mike pence. it was victory in the communities of heartland america which helped propel donald trump into the white house. famously, he had never held elected office, but mike pence had, and that may mean that the new vice president has rare power and influence in the game of national politics. for many here, mike pence is a hometown hero, a key player in the state's political arena. now, though, he's taken the indiana playbook all the way to washington, dc. standing now at president trump's right hand, mike pence has always taken strongly conservative positions on issues including lgbt rights and sex education. faith, he says, is central to his life and to his politics.

for me, the sanctity of life proceeds out of the belief where god says, "before you were formed in the womb, i knew you," and so from my first time in public life, i've sought to stand with great compassion for the sanctity of life. i'm afraid we're going to get rained on today... victoria barrett is not impressed. she's mum to two young sons. before she had them, she had an abortion. there were so many things wrong with her that there was no waiting to see if she would survive or get better, there was only waiting for her to die. victoria insists it was right to terminate a non—viable pregnancy and warns women across america to beware of mike pence. while he himself may seem mild—mannered and calm and not like a threat, what he symbolises for activists who would like to limit our rights is that now is the time. in a funeral home on the edge of

town, hundreds of women gathered — not to mourn but to organise. how many of you believe that it is important that women in this country have access to safe and legal abortion? standing room only. here, the raised voices are the other women of the midwest. the only way we're going to go forward is if we are involved. this is the other side of the mass protest marches. the trump—pence victory means the nature of american government is changing. here, it feels like the nature of american opposition may be changing too. jeremy cooke, bbc news, indiana. let's return tojoe borelli, who served as co—chair of mr trump's campaign in new york. there are several very christian

conservatives in this administration, as well as mike pence, but 70% of americans do not wa nt pence, but 70% of americans do not want roe v wade to be overturned. whoever is nominated to the supreme court, should we be taking that off the table? well, i don't think roe v wade is a decision that can be overturned easily, nor do i think it is president trump's direct intention to directly overturned that decision. washington has always been... —— abortion been a controversial issue in this country, and the question is going to be whether the taxpayers, whether the government should be funding abortions, and that seems to be what donald trump has focused on with his executive order, reinstating the mexico city policy which bans foreign non—governmental organisations from receiving funds to perform abortions. that is the future of the debate in the country, i think donald trump will appoint someone i think donald trump will appoint someone tonight he was pro—life. i think donald trump will appoint someone tonight he was pro-life. joe borelli in new york, thanks very much. we will bring you news on that

appointment tomorrow. first, it was silicon valley, then ford, then goldman sachs, now 21st century fox is criticising mr trump's travel ban. an internal memo from rupert murdoch's sons, the company chiefs james and lachlan, told employees, "we deeply value diversity and believe immigration is an essential part of america's strength." the statement‘s a surprise, because rupert murdoch has close ties to mr trump. murdoch is also chairman of the conservative—leaning fox news, whose anchor bill 0'reilly had this to say last night. we don't want to tarnish the message the statue of liberty sends. also, the administration must be willing to grant exceptions and, above all, should help refugees survive in the terror zones abroad, we should do that. protecting americans is obviously priority number one, but the nobility of our nation demands we help suffering, helpless people if we can. 0n capitol hill, the senate committee has approved betsy devos as education secretary, and her nomination will now go

before the full senate. but there were empty chairs at other votes today as democrats blocked the nomination of two other key cabinet picks, delaying their confirmation even further. democrats are demanding more information about tom price, who's flagged as health secretary, and steve mnuchin, mr trump's treasury nominee. there won't be a vote onjeff sessions until tomorrow now. the head of the un and programmer saying as many 20,000 people could have been resettled in the us during the travel ban. he added that, in this week alone, 800 refugees were set to make america their home. he says they now face an uncertain future because of the executive order that postpones the refugee programme for 120 days. and i was telling you about the petition, more than 1.7 million people have signed it, calling for the cancellation of mr

trump's state visit to britain. but there is also a counter petition, over 100,000 people have signed that document, not as many, and the subject is due to be debated in the uk parliament on monday the 20th of february. i expect that will be a very feisty debate. you think?! you're watching one hundred days from bbc news. still to come for viewers on the bbc news channel and bbc world news, with donald trump's election energising far—right parties across europe, we'll be in germany, gauging the strength of support for the far—right afd party. and as british mps debate the brexit bill, the government warns against frustrating the will of the people. that's still to come on 100 days from bbc news. hello, good evening. all our weather

is going to be coming in from the west for the start of february, we can see it all queueing up out in the atlantic, today's cloud still bringing rain and drizzle. this cloud arriving in the south—west on wednesday, or significant cloud arriving on thursday, and this cloud that at the moment is towards new york may bring stormy conditions by the end of the week. if you are wondering what the sunshine looks like, we eventually got some in northern ireland, but for many parts of the uk, weather to forget, a lot of the uk, weather to forget, a lot of low cloud, rain and drizzle, turning wetter over the past few hours across england and wales. that rain will creep eastwards, lifting temperatures in eastern england, becoming drier later out towards the west, a few breaks in the cloud across north—west scotland and northern ireland, so it touched surely here, otherwise not a particularly cold night, but not pleasa nt particularly cold night, but not pleasant all in all. the land down for most of us on wednesday to

start, rain and wrestle mainly across england. —— dull and damp for most of us one wednesday to start, rain and drizzle mainly across england. a milder day than the last few, but eastern england and scotland. as we head into thursday, this is the first big area of low pressure that is getting close to oui’ pressure that is getting close to our shores, the centre tracking to the west of ireland, the biggest impacts are likely to be felt in island, but in the uk gales, may be severe around western and southern coastal areas, some rain from time to time, not much left by the afternoon, but a mild and windy day. that wet and windy weather moves away, and this is the next one, the headache towards the end of the week. low pressure approaching our shores, but what is going to happen to it? is it going to develop? some computer models push it to the south of us, less impact, that scenario is

less likely. the more likely scenario is that the low pressure will deepen, will develop, turn towards the uk, and that will leave us towards the uk, and that will leave us with more impact. some wet weather, but also very windy, particularly towards the south—west of the uk, gusts of up to 80 mph, wet and windy weather moving northwards. welcome back to 100 days with katty kay in washington and christian fraser in london. a reminder of our main story: national security officials rally to the defence of president trump's controversial immigration order, the new secretary of homeland security denying that it's a "ban on muslims". small business leaders speak out and a group of technology companies are supporting a challenge to trump's travel ban. i will have more... the move to the political ride goes

beyond the borders of the us. donald trump's election has in fact emboldened your‘s far right parties ahead of elections this year in france and the netherlands. —— political right. in germany alternative fur deutschland is putting its candidate up against angela merkel. 0ur correspondent has been to the northern region of germany to find out who is voting for alternative fur deutschland and why. europe's right promises a patriotic spring. in communities like this they are warming to the idea. it can be hard to make a living in germany's north coast and it feels a long way from berlin. they've little trust here in angela merkel. after all, they say, she has little time for them. translation: theyjust look after the big cities. the small communities up here? no. nothing is being done for us.

nothing gets through to us. they've forgotten us. good news for germany's right—wing party alternative fur deutschland. polls suggest one in every ten voters supports afd. in this region it's even more popular. translation: the other parties avoid the real problems. merkel just sticks to her views even though she sees what she's got us into. like the terror attacks. if she hadn't brought those people into this country, the victims of the berlin christmas market would still be alive. and afd has ambition. this form and radio presenter is standing directly against angela merkel in her own constituency. he is unlikely to take her seat but it isn't impossible. translation: we have a big problem with radical islam. we need to talk about it. it has been taboo in germany. the afd have broken that

taboo. thank god people now talk about their fears. just look at who is carrying out terror attacks in europe, they are all islamists. 2017 may yet be the year europe's political landscape shifts beyond recognition. there are elections in france and the netherlands, too. the real election battles will be fought in communities like this where people feel forgotten by their national governments, left behind by the political establishment. if europe's leaders really want to stop the rise of the right they must meet this challenge, reconnect with those voters, and we gained their trust. a recent display of right—wing solidarity in the german —— in this german city. afd shares views and a platform of the french presidential candidate marine le pen and the far right dutch politician. —— regain

their trust. they are emboldened by brexit and donald trump's victory. afd's bid brexit and donald trump's victory. afd‘s bid for election glory already divides this country. so interesting. left behind, forgotten, it is exactly what we heard here during the course of the american presidential election campaign. we know how that turned out. how does this work in europe? does donald trump emboldened these far right parties, or does he bring out voters in the centre who say, we don't want to go the way america went? that will be an interesting question, particularly for the french, because they have politicians on the right. and the person running against marine le pen is in all sorts of trouble. i want to bring up this picture, this

meeting thatjenny was talking about in koblenz. these are the populist parties of you. four of these —— two of these will have elections this year. marine le pen, we know all about. the italian separatist party leader in the middle. the netherlands will also have elections. and on the end is a politician from the freedom party in austria. they nearly snatched the presidencyjust at the austria. they nearly snatched the presidency just at the end austria. they nearly snatched the presidencyjust at the end of austria. they nearly snatched the presidency just at the end of last year. we can see how popular these parties are. while donald tusk is talking today about the existential threat from america, china and russia, it is within their mist. it is the rise of these populist parties which is the threat. and many are having arguments which are similarto many are having arguments which are similar to the once donald trump has had aboutjobs, similar to the once donald trump has had about jobs, about similar to the once donald trump has had aboutjobs, about immigration, about youth unemployment. —— ones.

these arguments are the same in europe and that is why they are proving so popular. one argument which is different and something that divides trump and his party and those parties in europe, and that is their belief in government and the state. trump came to power largely ona state. trump came to power largely on a rejection of government and the idea of state intervention. many of those parties are not running on that. marine le pen is not running against the french state or the intervention of french government. that idea, we are still europeans, we still like government and we still like the state. that's find out what is happening in europe and the brexit negotiations. british politicians have begun debating their views on brexit ahead of a crucial vote on the issue tomorrow. a bill which would give the government the authority to trigger article 50 — the formal notice to quite the eu. all eyes here on the size of the opposition to the bill. the brexit secretary david davis says parliament must honour the wishes of the people, who voted to leave the european union. we asked the people of the uk if they wanted

to leave the european union they decided they did. so, at the core of this bill lies a very simple question, do we trust the people or not? the democratic mandate is clear. the electorate voted for a government to give them a referendum. parliament then voted to hold the referendum. the people voted in that referendum. and we are now honouring the result of that referendum. shadow brexit secretary keir starmer made it clear that labour's official position is to support the bill, even though he personally wished the referendum result had gone the other way. had the outcome being to remain we would have expected the result to be honoured. and that cuts both ways. a decision was made on the 23rd ofjune last year to leave the eu. two third of labour mps represent constituencies that voted to leave. two thirds of labour mps represent constituencies that voted to leave. one third represent constituencies

that voted to remain. this is obviously a difficult decision. i wish the result had gone the other way. i campaigned passionately for that. but as democrats, our party has to accept the result. we have spoken about this before, america's populist revolution is moving at a dizzying speed. from this side of the atlantic it looks like britain is moving at a snail‘s pace with brexit. will that vote in parliament tomorrow finally speed up the process? david davies says he isn't amending decision that has already been made. the people took the decision lastjune. the delay has been in the legal battles that finished just the other week. we reported on it last week. it was at the supreme court. they said parliament had to be given a vote on triggering this formal process. that's begun today. they will probably tomorrow night a deal from

the nationalist parties. so we will see this convoluted process which i'm sure is familiar with people who follow bills through congress. what matters to people in the uk and outside the uk is the timetable. what i understand from my colleagues at westminster tonight is that there will be three tight days of debate next week. then it will proceed to the lords. there will be parliamentary ping—pong as they try to amend this bill. but they feel they can get it through parliament by the 7th of march. that is important for theresa may, because she wants to go to the european summit in brussels on the 9th of march and the 10th of march, she wa nts to march and the 10th of march, she wants to be able to say, this is it, this is the official start of pat —— that brexit process. that means they will then start to get the process going. and that will take a great deal of time. i will hold you to

that. businesses have had a lot to say about trump's travel ban. big tech companies including microsoft, amazon and expedia have been some of the most vocal critics, and are now helping washington state mount a legal challenge. michelle fleury is on the floor of the new york stock exchange — how have markets reacted to this michelle? when you consider silicon valley, it is really in their dna, notjust because these companies were founded by immigrants orwhere because these companies were founded by immigrants or where the descendants of immigrants, but also because it is one of their key resources today. many of their workers, many of the brightest engineers, best software developers, come from other parts of the world. they fear they will see a brain drain if donald trump expands from this immigration and starts targeting, for example, work visas, which they rely on. the other thing is it goes against their core values. if you think back to google and its inception, one of the things

they said from the beginning was we will do no evil. the founder of google has been protesting at the airports over the weekend in san francisco and on google's campus there was huge protests. i think thatis there was huge protests. i think that is what you are starting to see ceos that is what you are starting to see ceos from this particular industry being the most outspoken compared to the many other companies who have also taken a stand on this. of course, it isn't just also taken a stand on this. of course, it isn'tjust silicon valley. ford has been there, goldman sachs have come out against this and so sachs have come out against this and so has ge. many have celebrated the amazing stock market rally we've seen on amazing stock market rally we've seen on wall street. but there were also concerns about the immigration ban and competency in washington in the white house, and whether this rally might be coming to an end, what are you hearing? that's absolutely right. it was only a few days ago people were wearing the caps saying down 20,000 to mark a

huge milestone in that index's history. —— dow 20,000. huge milestone in that index's history. -- dow 20,000. it huge milestone in that index's history. —— dow 20,000. it has falle n history. —— dow 20,000. it has fallen back in the last couple of days, essentially since the travel ban. companies are re—evaluating the risk. they like a steady atmosphere. they don't like what is unpredictable. they are starting to say, hang on, we want a lower corporate tax rate, we like what we are hearing on less regulation, but there are also risks they are starting to price into the cost of business. there is the risk of a trade war, rising protectionism, and these are the things we are hearing more and more right here on the stock exchange. thanks very much. that is one hundred days, anthony zurcher and barbara plett—usher will be on facebook live straight after the show. and we'll be here tomorrow, at the same time on bbc world news, and the bbc news channel in the uk.

join us then if you can. goodbye. hello, this is bbc news, the headlines. mps will debate whether president trump should be granted a state visit to britain, as a petition against the plan continues to gain signatures. a second calling for the visit to go ahead, will also be discussed in parliament. the head of the us department of homeland security has defended president trump's controversial travel ban. john kelly insists it isn't designed to target muslims. mps have begun two days of debate on the bill that will help begin the process of britain leaving the european union. and coming up later, live coverage

of this year's costa book awards, the prestigious literary prize for british and irish authors. back to one of our top stories: mps have begun debating whether to give theresa may the authority to take the uk out of the european union. the snp and the liberal democrats say they'll vote against the legislation, but with jeremy corbyn telling labour mps to support it, the government looks set to win tomorrow's vote. speaking in the commons, the brexit secretary, david davis, said parliament must honour the wishes of the majority of the people, those who voted for brexit. we asked the people of the uk if they wanted to leave the european union, they decided they did. so at the core of this bill lies a very simple question — do we trust the people or not? the democratic mandate is clear, the electorate voted for a government to give them a referendum, parliament then voted

to hold the referendum, the people voted in that referendum, and we are now honouring the result of that referendum. labour's official position is to support the bill, even though some mps have indicated they'll vote against it. the former liberal democrat leader nick clegg is also opposing the bill, because he says the leave campaign failed to disclose its true intentions ahead of the referendum. it was a deliberate... it was an effective but highly cynical tactic. we never received a manifesto with the views of nigel farage, the foreign secretary, the former education secretary as one explaining what brexit meant, and therefore, when we finally know what brexit really means in substance, rather than in utopian promise, of course the british people should have their say. and that is the reason... no, i wish to make some progress. that is the reason why i believe this house does not have a choice but has a duty to withhold from the government the right to proceed with brexit in the way

that they have planned. that would not stop brexit, it would simply urge them to go back to the drawing board and come back to this house with a more sensible and more moderate approach to brexit. 0ur political correspondent chris mason is in westminsterfor us. it is fairto it is fair to say that the whole chamber, the commons chamber, most of the mps, from the majority of parties, backed remain. but the fact is, after the vote and tomorrow's crucial vote they have to go one way, don't they? they do. that is why this is a little light binge watching a parliamentary drama box set. but where we know how it is going to end, how the drama will conclude. because, as you say, despite the fact the vast majority of mps were remain, the vast

majority in the end, even those who voted that way themselves, will make the argument that democratically they feel obliged to back the triggering of article 50 and, so, the start of the divorce process, if you like, from the eu. there will be exceptions. the ministerfor totte n ha m exceptions. the ministerfor tottenham has already made the case that he found it very uncomfortable to have to go against what he felt was a strongly held view in terms of his view that the uk should leave the european union. a good number of lib dems, the scottish national party, and a decent number of labour mps likely to be of the view that they don't want to endorse the government's decision. but the official labour position is that they should back the government. the overwhelming majority of conservative mps were also backed the government. the conservatives have a majority, albeit a slim one, so have a majority, albeit a slim one, so this will pass when it comes to a vote around about 7pm tomorrow

night. we have anotherfour vote around about 7pm tomorrow night. we have another four hours and ten minutes of the debate tonight, however, so plenty more still to come. i hope you have your matchsticks. i suppose the irony of this vote is that while through the majority of my lifetime the debate about europe has been focused on the conservatives and the rivalry and the divisions within the party, at this crucial moment in british history, it is actually the labour pa rty‘s history, it is actually the labour party's problems that are perhaps at before. what's interesting here is that you look at the conservative parliamentary party. —— the fore. at the referendum they were split, which reflects the country. you might imagine that that division which has been there for a generation in the conservative party would be manifesting itself in the debate now. there isn't. there is a recognition publicly from the vast majority of conservative mps, there are exceptions like ken clarke, but the vast majority that they have to

reflect the will of the people in the referendum. so they are not divided. whereas labour are all over the place. and that is because most areas that have a labour mp voted leave in the referendum. yet most labour mps voted remain. so what do they do? follow the will of their constituents, or their own that is principle? why they are all over the place. chris, you are staying up late, sorry about that, but we will talk later. thanks very much. let's move on. . . a woman has been found not guilty of causing grievous bodily harm to a toddler, who was shot in the head with an air—rifle, leaving him seriously injured. emma horseman had denied telling her partnerjordan walters to shoot the child to frighten him. walters had pleaded guilty to the same offence. charlotte callen reports. in a second, little harry's life was changed forever. just 18 months old, he was shot in the head byjordan walters and critically injured. harry's mother amy allen broke down in tears in court.

she said she and her boys had been visiting emma horseman and jordan walters at their flat here in hartcliffe. they were neighbours and good friends. the court heard that walters had been cleaning his air rifle that he used for hunting, in his kitchen, whilst their children played in the living room. when harry started crying, the court heard walters picked up the gun and aimed it straight at harry's head and pulled the trigger. during the trial, the jury were told neither he nor his partner emma had realised the gun was loaded. walters had already pleaded guilty to causing grievous bodily harm. but amy, harry's mother, told the court that she'd heard emma horseman urge walters to "shoot him in the head" "just to frighten him". emma said she couldn't remember saying that. and today, emma horseman, seen here with her head

covered leaving court, was found not guilty of causing grievous bodily harm, by a jury, in just half—an—hour. harry's family say he still suffers with health problems since he was shot, and that the air pellet is still lodged in his brain. and, although he's making great steps forward, they say it may be years before they know the full extent of his injuries. charlotte callen, bbc points west, bristol crown court. the costa book of the year will be announced later tonight at a ceremony in london. the short list includes a first novel, a memoir, poetry, fiction and a children's book. rebecca jones is in central london for the award ceremony tonight. it is getting pretty lively here. the 300 guests are enjoying their champagne and canapes as they await the announcement of the costa book

of the year. what is unique about this prize is that it showcases the whole of contemporary writing. there are categories for the best novel, the best first novel, the best children's book, the best collection of poetry, best biography. each of the winners of those categories are here tonight and they are now nervously waiting to find out if they've been picked as the overall costa book of the year. let's remind ourselves who is on the short list... the winner of the first novel prize is francis spufford, for his book golden hill. it's set in the 1740s in the early days of new york. when a stranger arrives there, he finds a world of opportunity and trouble. the biography award went to dadland by keggie carew. it follows her quest to find out more about her father's experiences in the second world war, but she gets more than she bargained for as, one by one, his secrets are revealed. falling awake won the poetry award for alice oswald. the poems are designed to be read aloud and reflect on life, death and the power of nature, as well as greek myths.

the previous costa book of the year winner sebastian barry took the novel award for days without end. after signing up for the american army in the 1850s, two young men fall in love while caught up in the chaos of more. and in the bombs that brought us together, the children's book award winner written by brian conaghan, a teenage adventure takes the spotlight. it's a tale of two friends faced with a terrible choice in a dystopian world. those are the books but who will win? iamjoined those are the books but who will win? i am joined by one of the judges, the writer, broadcaster, and presenter, graham norton. thanks very much. have you judged or book prize before? i have not but i read a lot. i just prize before? i have not but i read a lot. ijust came to it as someone

who enjoys reading. that, in my head, was how i wasjudging the books, which one i enjoyed the most, which one i would recommend to friends. you are a writer, you have written two autobiographies, do not roll your eyes, and a novel. i wonder how much your experience as a writer influenced your position as a charge. having written a novel it makes you far more sympathetic, i think, because you know how much goes into it. the two novels... the three novels are exceptional. and the memoir and the poetry. this was such a pleasure. when i said yes i didn't know who the winners were. and you think, what am i going to have to plough through? but all five we re have to plough through? but all five were a delight. it seems to me, judging this prize is particularly difficult, because you are choosing between very different books. difficult, because you are choosing between very different booksm difficult, because you are choosing between very different books. it is difficult. some are less immersive and less involving than the others.

in the end, well, what we talked about was, what was the book of the year. you know? so, in a way, you are not comparing them, you are judging them as individual books. thinking, is that my book of the year? take me inside thejury thinking, is that my book of the year? take me inside the jury room. i understand you deliberated for about an hour i understand you deliberated for aboutan hourand i understand you deliberated for about an hour and a half. whether violent disagreements? —— were there. well, there were two books that a couple of people hated, and there was one book where one of the judges, well, she thought it was the new bible. a couple of hours —— the rest of us were sort of middle ground. 0ut rest of us were sort of middle ground. out of the five i would have been happy with four of them as winners. how did it compare with judging for eurovision? it's a very

difficult... very different thing. you know... tonight's winner will be less surprising than the winner often is at eurovision. you cannot second—guess eurovision. you can probably second guess which one of these will win. did you have a favourite you are prepared to share with me? of these? yes. i allowed? yeah, go on. am i? go on. my two favourites were dadland and days without end. dadland was a memoir about a woman whose father was losing his mind. so she went back and explored his past. he was in the army. and she finds out loads of things. —— my two favourites were

golden hill and dadland. time for a look at the weather. all of our weather will be coming in from the west for the start of february. it is queueing up in the atlantic. that was today's cloud still bringing in rain and drizzle. more cloud will arrive on wednesday. and even more on thursday. this cloud is towards new york, which may bring stormy conditions by the end of the week. but we are far away from that. we eventually got sunshine today in northern ireland, but for many parts of the uk it was a day of weather to forget. lots of cloud and drizzle. it has been turning wetter over england and wales. that rain will

creep to the east, lifting temperatures in eastern england. becoming drier towards the west. we may get some breaks in the cloud across north—west scotland and northern ireland. a touch chilly here, but not a particularly cold night, and also not very pleasant. there will be some mist and hill fog on wednesday, mainly across england, pushing slowly eastwards. away from here, things should brighten up. sunshine on the way, which would be welcome change ahead of rain later in northern ireland, wales and the south—west. a milder day for eastern england and eastern scotland compared to late. on thursday, this big area of low pressure is coming close to our shores. the centre will be tracking to the west of ireland. the biggest impacts are likely to be felt in ireland. in the uk we are looking at maybe severe gales over western and southern coastal areas. rain from time to time. not much of rain left by the afternoon. but it'll be a mild and windy day. that

wet and windy weather moves away. and this is the headache towards the end of the week. low—pressure approaching our shores. what will happen, where will it go, will it develop? some computer models are running this area to the south of us. running this area to the south of us. less impact but that scenario is less likely. the more likely scenario is for the low pressure to deepen, develop, and turn to the north, head towards the uk and that will give us more impact. wet weather, but also windy weather, particularly towards the south. gusts up to 80 mph. wet and windy weather moving to the north. this is bbc news. the headlines at 8: after worldwide protests the home secretary calls president trump's travel ban wrong, saying it could help so—called islamic state to recruit supporters. isil and daesh will use any

opportunity they can to make difficulties to create the environment they want to radicalise people, to bring them over to their side. it is a propaganda opportunity for them, potentially. but after sacking america's top legal officer for disagreeing with the ban, donald trump is holding firm. mps are debating the bill that will begin the process of britain leaving the eu. also in the next hour, we'll have live coverage of the costa book awards. there are five in the running for the prestigious literary prize, for british and irish authors.