what is it you love about doing this job? i love everything about it, i like where it's at, we always say our office is, you can't beat it, it's just beautiful up here all weathers. and even today is a gorgeous day. in the summertime, you've got the heat and the scenery and just everything about it. and especially getting the wall back to the original state, knowing it's going to be there, hopefully another hundred years. it was spectacular up there. and a wonderful bit time for a look at the weather, here's sarah keith—lucas. it looked

now, tax experts tell us there are grounds to investigate companies connected

with mr barrowman for fraud. | doug loves fine art, fast cars, i and the better things in life... there's no consequences for him. he's just going to keep doing it again and again. so will doug barrowman now face more scrutiny by hmrc? also tonight... nurses, teachers, civil servants, train drivers, midwives, all in their tens of thousands, strike in northern ireland where, without government at stormont, pay is falling behind the rest of the uk. we'll ask the dup's gregory campbell mp why, with the midnight deal

for a powersharing agreement looming tonight, his party is still dead against? and to sinn fein�*sjohn o'dowd — is the good friday agreement now under threat? beijing calls taiwan's new president, william lai, a "trouble—maker" and a "dangerous separatist". his new de—facto ambassador to the uk gives newsnight his first interview. we are working to make sure that china believes the cost is going to be too high for them to even think about taking the military action against taiwan. and... you're, like, really pretty. thank you. so you agree? what? you think you're really pretty? in 2004, mean girls took many teenagers by storm. # i don't care... 20 years on — and many versions later — it's a new movie—musical. we speak to the author of a new book on the memes and the magic of mean girls. good evening.

douglas barrowman, a self—described "scottish billionaire", along with his wife — the ex—tory peer michelle mone — made millions from selling personal protective equipment to the uk government during the pandemic. that deal has ended in recriminations, with the government now suing the pair for breach of contract. and they are also being investigated by the national crime agency over it. but tonight, a major investigation by newsnight and bbc verify, working with tax policy associates, suggests the potential for yet more legal jeopardy for mr barrowman. this relates to mr barrowman�*s business interests before the pandemic, in which companies linked to him sold legally questionable tax avoidance schemes. here's ben. doug loves fine art, fast cars. and the better things in life... i never say no to that. this is douglas barrowman. ..but his greatest love is his 55—metre yacht. | you have to spend it on something. there's a limit to how many houses you can have and private air travel.

so therefore, a lot of people come to the conclusion, i'm going to have one of these. he's made millions in finance and hasn't been shy about showing offjust how many millions, telling the world in a 2022 documentary, million pound mega yachts. i think i'd have to say that everything you look at is expensive on this yacht! but campaigners, and those burned as he made his money, aren't so celebratory. i think it's deeply corrosive for people to be able to rip other people off, rip the tax man off and get away with it. people will fall for. these sorts of things. it's just another way of him - making more money out of us. he's like scotland's answer to the wolf of wall street. mr barrowman was thrown back into the public spotlight recently as the husband of ex—conservative peer michelle mone. i'm a business guy, so i think like an entrepreneur, i don't know the parliamentary rulebook. we're constantly working to improve that delivery system, buying ppe from around the world and working to make more here at home. mr barrowman made millions from selling personal protective equipment,

ppe, to the uk government during the pandemic, and one of his companies is now being sued by the government for breach of contract. it's also being investigated by the national crime agency. but how did douglas barrowman make his money before the ppe affair? aml has been described as doug barrowman�*s "tax—avoidance firm" in an hmrc press release. in the 2010s, aml promoted a scheme which supposedly enabled self—employed contractors to avoid income tax by converting their salaries into a loan from an offshore trust, a loan which would never need to be repaid. we've used top tax barristers in the uk to ensure that every aspect of the service is within the boundaries of current uk legislation and case law. visit our website calculator to find out what you could be taking home with aml. the problem was that these

disguised remuneration schemes weren't legally sound, and hmrc eventually clamped down in 2016, landing those who had been sold mr barrowman�*s schemes with often huge loan charges. doug adams was one of them. he had taken out a loan with one of mr barrowman�*s companies in 2011, when he was an it contractor. he ended up facing a loan charge of £90,000 from hmrc. it's impacted my health. i've been to hospital several times with chest pains. it's100% caused by the stress from the loan charge. you know, i did meet someone, but i was suffering from depression at the time we got married and, you know, i'm pretty sure this has contributed to my divorce. and now i'm having to sell my house, you know, to basically pay off the divorce settlement. he's effectively destroyed my life.

it's meant that, you know, at the age of 56, i'm going to be homeless. and, you know, with property prices as they are in this area, i won't be able to live here any more. amy ross, an oil and gas sector contractor, also signed up for the same scheme in 2011. in 2015, she received a letter from hmrc informing her that she owed a considerable sum of money. ijust remember sitting in my car and feeling physically sick when i was reading it and it wasjust, like, panic. it was over £4,000 a month for three years. i can't pay them more than i have coming in. it's always there in the back of your mind. every now and again, you can forget about it, and then one of these

brown envelopes from hmrc lands on your doorstep. there have been cases of suicide which have been linked to the loan charge. does it surprise you that it's had such an extreme impact on some people? no, that doesn't surprise me, because i do remember having some, you know, momentarily sort of similar thoughts. i think, you know, when you're lying in bed at night thinking, you know, "i can't afford to pay this, i don't know what i'm going to do", so i'm not surprised that some people kind of went all the way there. it's estimated that douglas barrowman�*s companies have made tens of millions of pounds of profit from pushing these kind of schemes, which have upturned the lives of people like doug and amy, and many more. whether mr barrowman�*s companies were acting within the law by pushing these schemes before the 2016 hmrc clampdown is a moot point.

but now, tax policy associates has uncovered new evidence — shared with newsnight — which suggests that mr barrowman�*s companies were continuing to push these schemes after that 2016 clampdown, which is a whole different order of seriousness. here's the paper trail. it starts with a letter from mr barrowman�*s main company, aml, from february 2019, recommending that its customers hit with loan charges get in contact with a third company called vanquish 0ptions. vanquish was pushing a convoluted scheme which would supposedly clear the individual�*s loan charge liability by converting it into yet another loan — for a large fee, of course. the problem, from the perspective of hmrc, was that nothing had changed. the individual still had a loan and was therefore liable to the loan charge. but vanquish was advising people that it would square them with the tax authorities. here's a letter to someone

who signed up to the vanquish scheme, claiming they now have "no outstanding liability". and note the date of the new loans made referenced — between 2017 and december 2018. remember, this is long after hmrc had made 100% clear that these were not legitimate tax avoidance schemes. it was again criticised . for being retrospective. now, some of these arrangements lwould undoubtably have receivedl accelerated payment... tax experts believe it's this that creates grounds to investigate whether these companies connected to mr barrowman have engaged in fraud towards hmrc — not least, because it puts down in writing something that simply wasn't true. i think there's undoubtedly enough for hmrc to justify opening - a criminal investigation. whether they would, in the event, find sufficient evidence _ to give them confidence that they could proceed | through the courts with such - a criminal charge, that obviously would be dependent upon - what evidence they found and that,

in itself, would be quite - a challenging task, given that probably most of the evidence they'd l be looking for is outside of the uk. i you know, we have reached a point i where we perhaps do need to see i some of these businesses - and the individuals that run them being held to account - properly for what they sell. and if this type of thing doesn't come within the scope - of that sort of approach, then it's difficult - to see what would. now, mr barrowman has long denied any connection with vanquish, but newsnight has seen new evidence which casts considerable doubt on that denial. it turns out emails from vanquish used the same email server as aml. aml�*s email headers show that its emails originate from ip address 89—107—1.218 — the same as that found on vanquish emails. the ip address geolocates to douglas, on the isle of man, where mr barrowman and his business interests are based. the two companies also had some

of the same personnel, including arthur lancaster. vanquish directors also included timothy eve and paul ruocco, two close barrowman business associates. there's some further important context for mr barrowman�*s denials. in a recent bbc interview, mr barrowman and michelle mone admitted intentionally misleading the press over the affair — supposedly, to protect their privacy. i am a private person and don't want anyone in the press to know of any business activity or anything i get engaged in. it says that we cannot believe their denials. they said they weren't involved in ppe medpro. they were. he said he had no involvement in vanquish. he was. he's probably going to deny some of our other findings, but those denials, i feel, are worthless. it's unclear what, if any, is mr barrowman�*s involvement in the potential fraudulent letters, but he has defended the lawfulness of the scheme in his response to the bbc. a spokesman for mr barrowman�*s knox group of companies said that

mr barrowman "denies any and all allegations of dishonesty, misconduct and wrongdoing", and claims hmrc has "had disclosures" of relevant documents and that there has been "extensive dialogue and disclosure" for several years with the tax authorities. they claim that during this time, hmrc has never even suggested — let alone, alleged — that there's been any form of dishonesty or wrongdoing by the knox group. they added that they "deeply and sincerely regret the distress and anguish" arising from the hmrc loan charge, which they blame on retrospective legal action from the government. timothy eve, arthur lancaster and paul ruocco did not respond to bbc inquiries. if hmrc won't take any action over this case, what would the implications of that be? for me, as a tax lawyer, the implications are deeply depressing because it means that you can ignore tax law, you can make up tax schemes that have no prospect of working. you can sell them to people, extract large amounts of money from people.

and then when it all goes wrong, you can just walk away, hide on an offshore island, the people you sold the schemes to will be financially ruined and you just keep the winnings — in this case, likely hundreds of millions of pounds — and nobody can touch you. if we send that message, it's deeply corrosive to the tax system. i think it's deeply corrosive on a wider societal level for people to be able to rip other people off, rip the tax man off and get away with it. but that's the message we'll send if there's no prosecution. what are your thoughts about douglas barrowman and what he's done? i don't know. he's like scotland's answer to the wolf of wall street, you know? he just kind of keeps getting away with these things. and there's no consequences for him. he'sjust going to keep doing it again and again. amy, doug and many others think action must not be delayed. ben's here. where does this go next? of course, there is a big context of

this story because it wasn'tjust mr barrowman who was selling and promoting these schemes. as his spokesman was very keen to stress it was when we put these charges to him today. although the evidence suggests he was one of the largest players in this area. there is estimated to be 60,000 people caught up estimated to be 60,000 people caught up in these loan charges. and as it happens, there was substantial debate in this parliament today about those loan charges and hmrc�*s approach. and, as it happens, there was a substantial debate in parliament on these loan charges by hmrc in which mps from all sides of the aisle criticised hmrc s approach — in particular the fact that they are going after the individuals who took up the schemes, rather than the promoters of the them — people like mr barrowman. here s labour s darrenjones... some taxpayers are being told they owe hundreds of thousands of pounds. the government as we have heard repeatedly today is doing little to pursue the actual promoters behind mis—selling schemes. incredibly, hmrc have been issuing fewer than two fines per year against the architects and enablers of failed tax avoidance schemes.

how can the government possibly justify such a light touch approach for the promoters of such schemes, while many of those people caught up in them suffer such serious harm? and here s the conservatives iain duncan smith... it has now become clear that hmrc has been unable to find any legal basis to justify their claim that they have to pursue individuals but not those who promoted the schemes. that is now clear. what is the government position? the relevant minister today said that it is in the public interest for hmrc to continue to pursuse individuals for the loan charge. but you've just seen the cross—party pressure on hmrc to do more to go after the promoters of these schemes and this is where our findings today come in.

we ve provided an evidence base for hmrc to pick up when it comes to at least one major promoter. they have said they cannot comment on individuals and businesses. but if the findings do not spark action from hmrc i think we can expect the political pressure that we have seen, to continue to intensify. thanks forjoining us. northern ireland today witnessed its most widespread strikes in half a century. more than 100,000 public sector workers took part in a day of action that halted public transport, closed schools and disrupted health services. trade union leaders complain that public sector pay in northern ireland has fallen behind britain. the uk goverment has earmarked £600 million to address that, but is saying — for now — that that money can only be released if power—sharing is restored. well, the deadline for that decision expires injust over an hour, at midnight.

the largest unionist party — the dup — is saying no, which means an election will have to be held, but the uk government is expected to postpone that. and newsnight has been told that at the same time, the government intends to introduce new rules on decision making to allow bigger funding and policy announcements to be made by westminster, for northern ireland. here's nick, rolling back the years to 197k. what we are seeing in northern ireland is notjust an industrial strike. it has nothing to do with wages. it has nothing to do with jobs except to imperiljobs. it is a deliberate and calculated attempt to use every undemocratic and unparliamentary means for the purpose of bringing down the whole constitution of northern ireland. you have to turn the clock back 50 years to find such widespread

disruption — strikes by loyalists to bring down power sharing. strikes today by workers from all communities, caused in part by the absence of power sharing. northern ireland looks increasingly like a failed state, one minister told me. and no hope for a political agreement as a midnight deadline looms tonight for a deal. a failure to revive the powersharing executive, which would be led by sinn fein and the dup, means no extra cash for now. if a cross—party deal were agreed, northern ireland would receive an extra £3.3 billion overfive years. that would include £600 million for public sector pay to help workers catch up with colleagues in great britain. we will not tolerate this any more and we will not stand for it any more. they chant: we'll never be divided!

the government is holding back this money on the grounds that civil servants who run northern ireland in the absence of an executive, cannot make new funding decisions. so, what are the options as the dup refuses to re—enter stormont? the government is saying "no" to direct rule. that would be westminster ministers running health and education, as they did from the 1970s until the good friday agreement was up and running. "no" to london and dublin exercising joint authority. so, in the end, the government is looking at new plans to improve decision making in northern ireland without direct rule. this could allow some major decisions to be made and possibly free up that £600 million due for public sector pay. i'm joined by two northern ireland politicians —

john 0'dowd, a former sinn fein minister at stormont, and the dup mp gregory campbell. first, john 0'dowd. thanks forjoining us. huge strikes. young people leaving, public services, health services, in crisis, aren't politicians meant to make these things better? yes. crisis, aren't politicians meant to make these things better? yes, they are, but make these things better? yes, they are. but they — make these things better? yes, they are, but they have _ make these things better? yes, they are, but they have to _ make these things better? yes, they are, but they have to be _ make these things better? yes, they are, but they have to be able - make these things better? yes, they are, but they have to be able to - make these things better? yes, they are, but they have to be able to do i are, but they have to be able to do theirjob. in the rolls of the government, that means a power—sharing executive —— in the rules. but we dup for their own selfish reasons have refused to enter the power—sharing executive for the last three years, which means we are not allowed to do our jobs including supporting public sector workers.— jobs including supporting public sector workers. if you don't have a default functioning _ sector workers. if you don't have a default functioning administration | default functioning administration working togetherfor default functioning administration working together for northern ireland, do you think the good friday agreement is under threat? there is political forces who

threaten the good friday agreement and there are those within the dup who would like it to go away, but it is the only show in town. it has brought relative stability to our island in the last 25 years. it is a mechanism to share power and have relationships across the island of ireland which is important to many and also a mechanism to have relationships between this island and britain which is also important for so many so those who believe that through their actions of denying democratic rights to citizens, who think they are going to do away with the good friday agreement, they are sadly mistaken. 0ne minister told nick that northern ireland is a failed state. is there any chance that could have a shadow possibility, that it is actually a failed state? we possibility, that it is actually a failed state?— possibility, that it is actually a failed state? ~ ., , ., _ failed state? we have been failed by successive british _ failed state? we have been failed by successive british governments, - successive british governments, especially this one.— successive british governments, especially this one. what do you make of the _ especially this one. what do you make of the idea _

especially this one. what do you make of the idea they _ especially this one. what do you make of the idea they will - especially this one. what do you make of the idea they will come | especially this one. what do you i make of the idea they will come up with them about the deadline passes tonight, and a postponement of elections, but they are planning is having more policy initiatives and having more policy initiatives and having fewer budgetary constraints for what they can do for northern ireland and they will actually have a bigger role to play from westminster in northern ireland? fin westminster in northern ireland? (et the current legislation can make the assembly is not restored by midnight tonight, they should be an election, and they should be an election to hand it over to the people to have their say —— on the current legislation, if the assembly is not restored by midnight tonight. if the dup does not recognise the previous election, with sinn fein as the leader, which is the problem for the dup... let leader, which is the problem for the dup. .. , , , ,_ dup... let me bring in dup. they say dup... let me bring in dup. they say dup are refusing _ dup... let me bring in dup. they say dup are refusing to _ dup... let me bring in dup. they say dup are refusing to recognise -

dup... let me bring in dup. they say dup are refusing to recognise a - dup are refusing to recognise a nationalist first minister? that is the only conclusion _ nationalist first minister? that is the only conclusion you - nationalist first minister? that is the only conclusion you can - nationalist first minister? that is| the only conclusion you can come through. the only conclusion you can come throu~h. . , the only conclusion you can come throu~h. .,, ., the only conclusion you can come throu~h. ., ., , the only conclusion you can come throu~h. ., ., i, through. has that actually being said to you _ through. has that actually being said to you by — through. has that actually being said to you by the _ through. has that actually being said to you by the dup, - through. has that actually being said to you by the dup, that - through. has that actually being l said to you by the dup, that they will not accept a nationalist first minister? �* . ., , will not accept a nationalist first minister? n ., , ,, .,~ ., ., minister? actions speak louder than words and we _ minister? actions speak louder than words and we have _ minister? actions speak louder than words and we have had _ minister? actions speak louder than words and we have had three - minister? actions speak louder than words and we have had three yearsl minister? actions speak louder than l words and we have had three years of the back—and—forth between the government and the dup over the protocol and the windsor framework and those kind of things. informed sources will say those negotiations ended yet here we are in the middle ofjanuary and the dup are still refusing to go back in and the only thing which is clear to me and the only conclusion is that the dup, certain sections of the dup, cannot abide the idea of a sinn fein first minister, therefore the process is completely undemocratic and goes against the very spirit of the good friday agreement. let against the very spirit of the good friday agreement.— against the very spirit of the good friday agreement. let me put that to gre . o friday agreement. let me put that to gregory campbell- — friday agreement. let me put that to gregory campbell. is _ friday agreement. let me put that to gregory campbell. is it _ friday agreement. let me put that to gregory campbell. is it the _ friday agreement. let me put that to gregory campbell. is it the case - gregory campbell. is it the case that the dup are refusing to accept

a nationalist first minister? is that actually true?— a nationalist first minister? is that actually true? no, we have alwa s that actually true? no, we have always said _ that actually true? no, we have always said we _ that actually true? no, we have always said we accept _ that actually true? no, we have always said we accept the - that actually true? no, we have i always said we accept the outcome that actually true? no, we have - always said we accept the outcome of elections _ always said we accept the outcome of elections whether they go in our favour_ elections whether they go in our favour or not, we have never said anything — favour or not, we have never said anything remotely like what john 'ust anything remotely like what john just said — anything remotely like what john just said. if anything remotely like what john 'ust said. . ., , just said. if there were elections and the outcome _ just said. if there were elections and the outcome is _ just said. if there were elections and the outcome is that - just said. if there were elections and the outcome is that the - and the outcome is that the nationalists as they did in 2022 have the right to have the first minister, the dup would accept a nationalist first minister? we will acce -t nationalist first minister? we will accept whatever _ nationalist first minister? we will accept whatever the _ nationalist first minister? we will accept whatever the outcome - nationalist first minister? we will accept whatever the outcome is, l nationalist first minister? we will - accept whatever the outcome is, when the people _ accept whatever the outcome is, when the people vote and they vote freely, — the people vote and they vote freely, in _ the people vote and they vote freely, in a way which no one can determine — freely, in a way which no one can determine in advance, once the final ballot _ determine in advance, once the final ballot paper has been counted, that is the _ ballot paper has been counted, that is the outcome and we accept whatever— is the outcome and we accept whatever it is.— is the outcome and we accept whatever it is. that is clear. let me ut whatever it is. that is clear. let me put to _ whatever it is. that is clear. let me put to you what _ whatever it is. that is clear. let me put to you what i _ whatever it is. that is clear. let me put to you what i put - whatever it is. that is clear. let me put to you what i put to - whatever it is. that is clear. let l

me put to you what i put to john. me put to you what i put tojohn. let me talk about yourjob as a politician. the people pay politicians and their salaries and children with special needs in northern ireland cannot access the services they need, health service workers are much worse off paid than in other parts of the uk. there is a reduction in all services and hundred thousand people on the streets, so it that shameful as politicians that you are failing the people of northern ireland? it is shameful upon _ people of northern ireland? it is shameful upon the whole body politic but let's _ shameful upon the whole body politic but let's go back a couple of years. we said _ but let's go back a couple of years. we said to — but let's go back a couple of years. we said to the government, whenever they came _ we said to the government, whenever they came up with the protocol or windsor— they came up with the protocol or windsor framework, we said this presents — windsor framework, we said this presents a — windsor framework, we said this presents a couple of problems for us and the _ presents a couple of problems for us and the unionist community, trading problem _ and the unionist community, trading problem and a political problem, and they said. _ problem and a political problem, and they said, we will resolve those problems— they said, we will resolve those problems come out we said, we will work_ problems come out we said, we will work with— problems come out we said, we will work with you to resolve them, then shortly _ work with you to resolve them, then shortly after that we said there is

a resource — shortly after that we said there is a resource problem which is playing out on _ a resource problem which is playing out on the — a resource problem which is playing out on the streets of northern ireland — out on the streets of northern ireland because of the public sector pay rises _ ireland because of the public sector pay rises and they should be paid and the _ pay rises and they should be paid and the money is now found, so we pressed _ and the money is now found, so we pressed the — and the money is now found, so we pressed the government on both those issues _ pressed the government on both those issues and _ pressed the government on both those issues and we did not get much help from sinn _ issues and we did not get much help from sinn fein and anybody else. you can't live from sinn fein and anybody else. you can't give the — from sinn fein and anybody else. ym. can't give the pay rises unless you are doing it through stormont and stormont is not sitting.— are doing it through stormont and stormont is not sitting. why is that the case? apart — stormont is not sitting. why is that the case? apart from _ stormont is not sitting. why is that the case? apart from the _ stormont is not sitting. why is that the case? apart from the secretary of state _ the case? apart from the secretary of state saying it is so. we pressed him to— of state saying it is so. we pressed him to get— of state saying it is so. we pressed him to get the money and he has now -ot him to get the money and he has now got the _ him to get the money and he has now got the money, so he can allocate the ntoney— got the money, so he can allocate the money to people who deserve it, but what _ the money to people who deserve it, but what he's doing and everybody agrees _ but what he's doing and everybody agrees with this, he is using public sector— agrees with this, he is using public sector workers as a porn in a political— sector workers as a porn in a political dispute... sector workers as a porn in a political dispute. . ._ sector workers as a porn in a political dispute... that's a very bi . political dispute... that's a very big statement _ political dispute... that's a very big statement to _ political dispute... that's a very big statement to say _ political dispute... that's a very big statement to say believes . political dispute... that's a very i big statement to say believes that. there must be people in need of educational attainment, services for

disabled people, all sort of things which are not happening in northern ireland, and people might say that you are holding it to ransom. irate you are holding it to ransom. we are the --eole you are holding it to ransom. we are the people who _ you are holding it to ransom. we are the people who argued _ you are holding it to ransom. we are the people who argued for _ you are holding it to ransom. we are the people who argued for the - you are holding it to ransom. we are| the people who argued for the money and argued _ the people who argued for the money and argued for it and debated for it. �* , ., ., ., and argued for it and debated for it. but you will not go back into stormont to — it. but you will not go back into stormont to be _ it. but you will not go back into stormont to be part _ it. but you will not go back into stormont to be part of - it. but you will not go back into stormont to be part of the - stormont to be part of the disbursement of it? �* , disbursement of it? because we said to the government _ disbursement of it? because we said to the government there _ disbursement of it? because we said to the government there are - disbursement of it? because we said to the government there are two - to the government there are two problems— to the government there are two problems with the windsor framework and they— problems with the windsor framework and they said they would resolve those _ and they said they would resolve those. , , ., ,., and they said they would resolve those. , ,., ,., ., those. they did resolve part of the issues, those. they did resolve part of the issues. they _ those. they did resolve part of the issues, they did _ those. they did resolve part of the issues, they did do _ those. they did resolve part of the issues, they did do that. _ those. they did resolve part of the issues, they did do that. no, - those. they did resolve part of the issues, they did do that. no, they| issues, they did do that. no, they said they would _ issues, they did do that. no, they said they would do _ issues, they did do that. no, they said they would do it _ issues, they did do that. no, they said they would do it and - issues, they did do that. no, they said they would do it and when i issues, they did do that. no, they l said they would do it and when they unfold _ said they would do it and when they unfold at— said they would do it and when they unfold at the windsor framework we established that was not the case. there _ established that was not the case. there continues to be problems and the entire _ there continues to be problems and the entire outworking of the original— the entire outworking of the original protocol has not been fully implemented yet. so let's get this right _ implemented yet. so let's get this right we — implemented yet. so let's get this right. we negotiated and argued for the extra _ right. we negotiated and argued for the extra money which is now available _ the extra money which is now available and the secretary of state said in _ available and the secretary of state said in the — available and the secretary of state said in the house of commons and in public— said in the house of commons and in public that— said in the house of commons and in public that the money is available and if— public that the money is available and if the — public that the money is available and if the money is there, why does

he add _ and if the money is there, why does he add the — and if the money is there, why does he add the caveat which is that we have _ he add the caveat which is that we have to _ he add the caveat which is that we have to get — he add the caveat which is that we have to get back into stormont even though— have to get back into stormont even though they haven't done what they said they— though they haven't done what they said they would do regarding the windsor— said they would do regarding the windsor framework?— said they would do regarding the windsor framework? politics is about ra . matism windsor framework? politics is about pragmatism and _ windsor framework? politics is about pragmatism and the _ windsor framework? politics is about pragmatism and the needs _ windsor framework? politics is about pragmatism and the needs of- windsor framework? politics is about pragmatism and the needs of the - pragmatism and the needs of the people of northern ireland, as i said earlier, you have a vibrant young community but a lot of people are leaving the country now. you need to grow your country. what nick watt said in the report, he has been told at westminster that there are new rules on westminster having a bigger say on budgets and on policy. do you really think that is what the people of northern ireland want? they want more involvement in the westminster government than people who are elected for stormont? that is riaht, who are elected for stormont? that is right. people _ who are elected for stormont? that is right, people don't want that. you are — is right, people don't want that. you are quite right. it needs to happen— you are quite right. it needs to happen on— you are quite right. it needs to happen on monday, whatever legislation is brought forward, and it may— legislation is brought forward, and

it may well be for a temporary measure — it may well be for a temporary measure that would be a holding position. — measure that would be a holding position, but it should not replace the things— position, but it should not replace the things that are required to be done _ the things that are required to be done and — the things that are required to be done and that is the twofold approach to the windsor framework which _ approach to the windsor framework which needs resolving and we are going _ which needs resolving and we are going to — which needs resolving and we are going to work with that until we get it, going to work with that until we get it. and _ going to work with that until we get it, and then separately from that, and distinct from that, he has the money— and distinct from that, he has the money and — and distinct from that, he has the money and we have negotiated the money— money and we have negotiated the money and we have negotiated the money and he should give it to the people _ money and he should give it to the people who deserve it. and then let's move — people who deserve it. and then let's move forward. if people who deserve it. and then let's move forward.— people who deserve it. and then let's move forward. if you trust the government. _ let's move forward. if you trust the government, the _ let's move forward. if you trust the government, the uk _ let's move forward. if you trust the government, the uk government, | let's move forward. if you trust the - government, the uk government, why don't you actually go back into stormont and negotiate further on the framework when you are in there rather than doing it from outside? we have been negotiating with them for two _ we have been negotiating with them for two years and we have not succeeded so i have to hear a good reason _ succeeded so i have to hear a good reason why— succeeded so i have to hear a good reason why we could do that after what _ reason why we could do that after what has — reason why we could do that after what has happened. what we need, we need a _ what has happened. what we need, we need a system of government here that can _ need a system of government here that can be — need a system of government here that can be bought into by all sides. — that can be bought into by all

sides, unionism and nationalism, that is— sides, unionism and nationalism, that is the — sides, unionism and nationalism, that is the way we proceed and the way people have agreed we should proceed _ way people have agreed we should proceed so let's get on and do it and get — proceed so let's get on and do it and get the money to the workers and -et and get the money to the workers and get the _ and get the money to the workers and get the political problems resolved -et get the political problems resolved get stormont back up and running. we are committed to doing that and the sooner— are committed to doing that and the sooner we _ are committed to doing that and the sooner we do that the better. thank ou both sooner we do that the better. thank you both very _ sooner we do that the better. thank you both very much for— sooner we do that the better. t'iagria; you both very much for taking part. a trouble—maker and a dangerous separatist — that's how china views the man taiwan chose as its new president in last week's election. beijing's also criticised the us and uk governments for congratulating william lai — leader of the pro—sovereignty democratic progressive party — which rejects china's claim to the island. this, after months of the chinese military ramping up its presence around taiwan, raising fears of a possible conflict. now, in his first interview since taking up the role this month, the new de—facto taiwanese ambassador to the uk has told newsnight that china's response to the vote is "absurd" — warning china not to "even think about taking military action". the taipei representative

vincent yao's been speaking to our diplomatic editor, mark urban. cheering let's talk about the election first. presumably, you're very pleased that it went ahead and that there was a clear result, because there were a lot of concerns, weren't there, about attempts by the people's republic to influence the outcome of the election? i mean, the turnout rate was nearly 72% and president—elect lai and vice president—elect hsiao won a0.05% of the total vote in a three—way race. and the british government, together with the us government, japanese government, and the european union were among the first democracies to extend congratulatory messages to taiwan. so we appreciate it very much.

and yet, almost as soon as the uk and us governments did that, congratulating you on the results, that triggered hostile comments, didn't it, from beijing? i think this is part of our life as a diplomat of the world. 0ur government and i believe china's response was absurd. you know, they don't have their own free and democratic elections, and they claim that taiwan's election is their internal elections... a "local election", they said. a local election. and for other governments to congratulate taiwan on their successful election is interference of their domestic affairs — this is absurd. we don't even want to, you know, rebut on their claims. we are talking about the fact right now that taiwan is never part

of the people's republic of china. prc has never ruled taiwan for even one day, and taiwan has its own political system. we have our own democracy and freedom, and people want to maintain a free and democratic way of life in taiwan. it's their own wishful thinking. in their definition, the status quo means "one china", and taiwan is part of china and people's republic china represents the entire china. it's notjust wishful thinking, is it? because part of that policy in the people's republic is not to rule out the use of force in trying to bring about their vision of "one china". so invasion, in other words. what do you think about taiwan's state of preparedness to defend itself? could it be raised higher? is it sufficient? we are working in that direction to make sure that china believes the cost is going to be too high

for them to even think about taking military action against taiwan. but certainly, taiwan alone cannot reach that objective. we need to work with our partners and allies, and that's what we have been doing. and we work very closely with the united states, with japan, and also, we work very closely with the uk and european countries to try to make sure that we can come up with a very credible collective deterrence against china's brinkmanship. what does the experience of ukraine tell you about having to resist a really powerful neighbour? we really learned a lot from the war in ukraine and we recognised the courage and braveness and resilience of the ukrainian people.

taiwan is a democratic country, on the forefront of the expansion of an authoritarian regime. we are strengthening our symmetric warfare capability. we're trying to get the global support. we're trying to work with our allies and partners to form a very credible collective deterrence. what could taiwan do to increase its relationship with the united nations? our objective is to participate meaningfully, to be able to contribute. for example, we have the experiences on countering the disinformation operations from the authoritarian regime. but we can share all these experiences, but we don't have the platform. we don't have the stages. there's no mechanism for taiwan to share all these experiences,

so the purpose is for taiwan to be able to contribute, to participate meaningfully, and for that we need assistance and help from other democracies and like—minded countries. the de—facto ambassador from taiwan. mean girls was one of the defining teen movies of the early noughties — teenagers, particularly girls, recognised the cliques, the different social forces, the pink aesthetic, the secret vocabulary, the cool and not—cool looks, the cruelty — cruelty that social media has since magnified. it made a star out of lindsay lohan and spawned mean girl memes, a musical, sequels, and — 20 years on from the original — a movie of the musical is out in cinemas tomorrow. and along the way, it's been criticised for its politics on race, gender sexualirty and body image. in a moment, we'll talk to the author of so fetch: the making of mean girls (and why we're still so obsessed with it).

first, let's go back in time. oh, my god, i love your bracelet! where did you get it? oh, my mom made it for me. it's adorable. it's so fetch! what is fetch? oh, it's, like, slang. from england. # i don't care... a little taster from the new mean girls movie there, too. jennifer keishin armstrong, the author of so fetch: the making of mean girls (and why we're still so 0bsessed with it), joins us now. thank you very much forjoining us. you saw this as soon as it came out. you saw this as soon as it came out. you were a little older and in your 20s. what was it about it that so intrigued you? i 20s. what was it about it that so intrigued you?— 20s. what was it about it that so intrigued you? i was really excited because i knew _ intrigued you? i was really excited because i knew that _ intrigued you? i was really excited because i knew that tina - intrigued you? i was really excited because i knew that tina fey - intrigued you? i was really excited because i knew that tina fey had i because i knew that tina fey had written it and i love the tina fey. she was on saturday night live at the time and was the side of the smart, funny women. and that was

really why i wanted to see it. i wanted to see her take on teenage girls. wanted to see her take on teenage uirls. ~ , ., wanted to see her take on teenage uirls.~ , ., ,, wanted to see her take on teenage uirls. ~ , ., ~' wanted to see her take on teenage uirls.~ , girls. why do you think young teenagers _ girls. why do you think young teenagers did _ girls. why do you think young teenagers did identify - girls. why do you think young teenagers did identify with i girls. why do you think young | teenagers did identify with her girls. why do you think young - teenagers did identify with her so well and what did she capture? she ca tured well and what did she capture? sue: captured this well and what did she capture? 5ie: captured this thing well and what did she capture? 5“ie: captured this thing we had well and what did she capture? 5ie: captured this thing we had not seen on film before, which is what is called a relational aggression or the way that girls kind of use their relationships and manipulate each other a little bit in these power dynamics. even when they say they like each other, they are kind of still competing. and it can be very, very difficult. and she captured this in a way no—one had taken seriously before this. that this in a way no-one had taken seriously before this.— seriously before this. that is really interesting _ seriously before this. that is really interesting because i seriously before this. that is really interesting because it| seriously before this. that is - really interesting because it was billed as a comedy, but it was quite dark and tina fey, there were lots of reasons why she was doing it and lots of altruistic reasons as well is just wanting to create a great comedy, which is to say that this is the way girls particularly can behave towards each other. and it was universal around the world,

everybody knew it.— was universal around the world, everybody knew it.