trade wars aren't so bad. do you understand 7 the truth is quite the opposite. trade wars are bad and easy to lose. so we will see what happens. trump threatens a new world war — a trade war. and the eu don't like it. is this likely to be a significant retreat from the globalised world order? where does the age of identity politics leave people of mixed race? i am black but i am also white. and just because i have one parent that's black and one parent that's white, doesn't mean that for me i have to pick. and a love letter to nme as its printing presses stop. you've filtered people into those that read the nme, those that read melody maker and those that didn't read either. people you didn't need to waste your time with. hello.

so we now know, it was a nerve agent that was administered to sergei and yulia skripal. the case is obviously being treated as attempted murder, but also as a major incident. a nerve agent, a chemical weapon, used on our streets. there's the threat to public health there could have been. that's thankfully considered low risk now, but also a police officer is seriously ill with the effects. now these chemicals are hard to manufacture. they are not remotely something any ordinary criminal could muster. and that makes it more likely that a state entity was involved. it was a nerve agent used to kill kim jong un‘s half—brother last year at the airport in kuala lumpur. the americans attribute that murder to north korea for example. mark urban is with me. take us through what we learned today? the key thing is this determination that it was some kind of nerve agent. i'm told they still don't know

what the nature of this poison is, but we can come back to that in a moment. the other key fact was the officer being seriously ill. this hardens the sense that you are either extremely well organised people or a state. it being a police officer who is now also among the victims of this raises the game diplomatically. everybody has heard the phrase nerve agent but most of us don't really know quite what that is and what the imprecations are? we have to think outside the box. the obvious ones, sarin etc, would have been teste already. the chemical agent detectors and other monitors that would have been applied at the scene and to the victims, they have come to the determination it is not one of those. they are typically those that work

by interrupting the nerve connections in the body and breaking them down. it is not a straightforward one that the military kits would easily find. so what is it? they don't know yet. it is something more exotic. it could be a specially developed type of poison specifically for assassination. it could be something even like a synthetic form of snake venom or shellfish toxin which is a naturally occurring thing which can interrupt how the nervous system works, but could be synthesised as an assassination weapon. what happens now? well, self—evidently the key thing is whether or not these people survive, whether they can determine how to treat them. the usual stuff, chemical substances which are used when somebody has organophosphates, as presumably already been tried. when somebody has organophosphates, has presumably already been tried.

that would've been the immediate reaction. can they be saved? clearly a lot could be learned if they could be. attention also focusing on who was around them in the minutes and hours before they fell ill. we were talking earlier. we have had a risen in attack in this country. that was back in the 70s. we have had a polonium attack. hard to think of a chemical attack, in nerve agent, being used on british soil. it is. although i will backtrack to the previous answer and say that because this might be some unknown, extremely exotic form of poison for assassination, self—evidently then it would be an unprecedented use of that type of agent. mark, thank you. now it's all too easy to jump to some obvious conclusions about who's behind this. and no doubt most of us are thinking russia. but there is some nuance here — russia is not one single agency, nor is it synonymous

with vladamir putin. gabriel gatehouse knows the country well, and reflects now on the complexity within. when enemies of the kremlin are poisoned in britain... members will have their suspicions. the finger of blame is quick to point... have their suspicions. to moscow, and with good reason. a man was poisoned your own waterloo bridge in 1978 by a panel pellet fired from a specially constructed umbrella. the kgb organised the assassination. that is the same organisation that nurtured and trained the man who is now president of russia. clearly, the practice of killing its enemies abroad has survived the collapse of the soviet union. so if today's revelation

about the possible use of a nerve agent is correct, and there is a russian connection, then who gave the order? there are three possible options. option one is putin. under this theory nothing happens without his say—so. intriguingly, in 2006 russia adopted the law that allows the president and the president alone to order the killing of its enemies abroad. putin has two types of enemies. one group, one faction is outsiders, those who challenge the system from outside. and the other group are those who were part of the system before. and if they defect, if they change sides, that is treated as treason. and they are treated as traitors. sergei skripal would belong

to the latter category. so did alexander litvinenko. the investigation into his death included the killing was probably approved by the head of the fsb and by mr putin himself. option two is organised crime. this is essentially the mac mafia theory, people who deal in the murky world of secret information are likely to find themselves mixed up in dodgy business. the mac mafia drama series, in which russian gangsters used london and britain more generally to launder money and settle scores, is, according to a minister last month, very close to the truth. but no evidence has yet emerged that surrogate script was involved in such activities. and poison seems like an unlikely method for an underground hit. option three is it is complicated.

the kremlin is not a monolith. there are different weaponised factions, armies, groups connected to the russian state, to the power, that use this force, which used this force, to intimidate their own opponents. with the opposition politician and putin critic boris nemtsov was murdered just yards from the kremlin walls, many in the west assumed putin himself must have been behind it. but in russia they know things are a little murkier. the tragic story of boris nemtsov at least suggests that not every deadly order comes from straight broth. putin was not directly involved. he even most likely didn't know about it

until it had happened. could sergei skripal, who didn't seem to pose any immediate threat, have fallen victim to similar power games? the truth could be more complicated still. and under world involvement might not preclude people from the kremlin, and rival factions inside the kremlin operating without direct orders might still be doing so with the knowledge of those at the very top. details of the type of poison used may give investigators some clues as to the identities of those responsible. it still won't tell us why or why now. so where does all of this leave britain's diplomatic relations with russia? what, if anything, could or should be done if moscow was found to have been involved? i'm joined from new york by alex goldfarb. he's a russian microbiologist

and was a close friend of alexander litvinenenko, the russian defector who was believed to have been murdered by the russian state here in london in 2006. with me here is sir tony brenton. he was british ambassador to moscow at the time of the litvinenko affair. alex goldfarb, let me start with you. which theories of the different kinds of accounts, which would you be focusing on? i do not have any evidence. i would pick the putin theory for the simple reason that he is the only one who had a motive and an opportunity, and has been he shown beyond any reasonable doubt to be involved in the previous assassination of little billing go, who was my friend. he has a motive. —— alexander litvinenko. his motive is the elections which are coming in about ten days. there is a very low turnout expected.

and he needs to energise his nationalistic anti—western electorate. so he wants to portray himself as a tough guy who can get his enemies anywhere in the world, and who has been presenting himself as the only thing that is protecting russia and the russians from the plotting and scheming of the west. i understand why you are positive in that theory. i understand why you are positing in that theory. interestingly though, is this attempted murder playing big in russia? are all talking about it in a election way, or are they basically ignoring it? well, it's bound to play high because it is being reported on national tv and on the internet. and the official response that this is the west plotting against putin, and that is why they killed this

guy, mi5 mi6 have killed this guy, that is what they said about alexander litvinenko as well. the other half russians will think that it serves the traitor right. what are the lessons you took from the alexander litvinenko case as to how britain should respond to something like this happening on its soil? if it does turn out to have a russian connection, it is outrageous. too big to ignore and yet it is hard to know what to do? well, it is a strong sense of deja vu. for ten years the british government refused to admit that the alexander litvinenko murder was a state—sponsored crime. up to the very public enquiry which happened in 2016, ten years after his death, they maintained this is a regular criminal matter. the moment an english judge ruled it was

state—sponsored murder in all probability ordered by putin, david cameron went on tv and said, "we knew it from day one." there were trying to keep it quiet, not to annoy putin. and they invited other attacks like this. if the response now will be the same, only words without any actions. there will be a third and fourth attempt. you blame the inaction last time for effectively russia thinking they can do this again? of course, there is no price that mr putin has paid for the murder of litvinenko. this time, britain can do a lot to respond. for example, in my view, they should not recognise the legitimacy of the elections.

everybody knows that these are fake elections. the two major opponents of mr putin, one of them was killed, and another was deprived from running. and he is running essentially unopposed. so, everybody knows it's not a real election. every observer for the past 15 years said that the russian elections are not fair and honest. i don't understand why... why you recognise mr... sorry to interrupt, but i have to move on. do you yourself feel in danger? do you think the russians would try something like this on american soil? well, ironically, i don't think that they would put their friend mrtrump in such a precarious position, but that might be wishful thinking — who knows? thank you very much.

let me turn to sir tony brenton. we got the first idea for what we do, which is not to recognise the legitimacy of the russian election. we don't recognise elections but governments. we have to deal with the government that this election produces, whatever you feel about the quality of the election. we have alljumped on russia. russia, of course, says, you are jumping to conclusions, it's not fair. you've jumped to the conclusion as well. i resist the suggestion that i have jumped to the conclusion. i was cautious two days ago, but us the bag as the evidence has accumulated that this is a sophisticated nerve agent, it points more and more clearly to russian state action. they have both motivation, the victim had already been accused personally by putin of being a traitor, and they are one of the very few agencies in the world who deploy this sort of poison, actually, as a matter of routine. you were in moscow at the time

of the litvinenko killing. what was going on? i mean, did you feel anything worked, or did you feel that kind of, oh, it's not us, how dare you suggest we would do such a thing? from the russians, there was a... once we made the accusation, what we got was denial, but following that, a whole spate of false stories — it was the british state, it was someone else, enough to muddy the atmosphere quite a lot. i would expect, if we come to make the accusation against the russians, we will get exactly the same. it did take a long time. we took the right amount of time to do anything, because we have to go through process, and we don'tjump to...

it is notjust about process. we wanted to be absolutely sure we had very strong evidence of russian involvement. week created the case, the cps said they thought they knew who it was, try to extradite him and they wouldn't. and we impose sanctions. we didn't really say it was a state—sponsored killing in london until 2016. we did not have slam dunk evidence. but you look for evidence. we got what we got, and we made that accusation through the sanctions we impose. i think the claim that we acted insufficiently following the litvinenko murder is a misconstruction of what happened. we chose the sanctions rather carefully, with a view to discouraging russia from doing anything similar again, any kind of work for the next 12 years. of course, in the 12 years, the situation has changed dramatically between us and russia. we have used up much of the armoury, so it is much harder now. looking at it, you would think, it can't be britain on

its own boycotting the world cup or anything like this. it's hopeless. it has got to be... the west has to say, this is not acceptable. did you try that? we did at the time of litvinenko. we were keen to get as much western supporters we could get. the americans were a much better state than they are now and were ready to be supported. our european partners, i regret to say, couldn't be seen for dust. they weren't going to have a row with russia about what they saw as a purely british concern. seriously? they did not see this as an attack on an international statement? they made statements. we were playing with the idea of excluding the russians from the gs, which happened subsequently, and the germans were entirely negative. what does this tell us about how to deal with thugs and bullies that parade around the world at the moment, do stuff that is unacceptable? you've got to deal with them because they run big and important countries... that's a very big question. just focusing on russia, we now have what looks like this outrage by russia and we will have to be seen to act

as powerfully as we can, but we know that our reaction is almost certainly going to be in effect. russia is enough of a rogue elephant and enough unaffected by what the west does to go its own way. we will have to act in a tough way, but in the longer term, the only way to get russia back behaving rationally is to begin to really incorporate it into sensible international discourse. isolating, threatening and sanctioning it doesn't work. we have to begin to rebuild relations. i know that is not what people want as a response, but that is what we have to do. thank you, both. it's been a chaotic debate within the white house — nothing new there. but president trump is clearly set on pursuing his idea of slapping penal taxes on steel and aluminiuim imports. he's lost his top economic adviser, gary cohn, as a result. and he threatens a trade war — the eu today spelt out how it might retaliate, hitting us exports of bourbon, peanut butter, cranberries,

among other items. who knows where it will end? which is one reason why most economists hate trump—style protection. whatever the problem, it's not the solution, they say. but in this age of populist disenchantment with globalisation, on the left and right, trump's logic may appeal well beyond the us. take his tweet: "we must protect our country and our workers. our steel industry is in bad shape. if you don't have steel, you don't have a country!" it's a logic most countries apply to farms, which would die without subsidy. are we about to see it apply to heavy industry? here's our business editor, helen thomas. when you think about trade and international economics,

you don't generally think of this. but a trump policy with its roots in america's rust belt states has quickly led here, a threat against classic symbols of americana. president trump wants tariffs of 25% on steel imports and 10% on aluminium. when we're behind in every single country, trade wars aren't so bad. these, very unusually, would be imposed in the name of national and protecting our companies and i'm not going to let that happen. today came the start of the official european response. if a move like this is taken, it will hurt the european union.

it would put thousands of european jobs in jeopardy and it has to be met by a firm and proportionate response. from what we understand the motivation of the us is an economic safeguard measure in disguise. not a national security measure. if president trump acts, europe has said it will respond in three ways. first, it will appeal to the world trade organisation, which will take time. the trouble is that president trump has already reacted with a threat to slap a tariff on european cars. it's exactly the kind of tit—for—tat that economists fear, a trade war that leaves everyone worse off. the policy started here, america's beleaguered steel industry. the aim is to fire up the sector, getting to levels that are sustainably profitable. but the main problem, a glut of cheap chinese steel, has already improved. and gains from previous more

targeted steel tariffs like in 2002, were short lived. steel mills reopened, new money came into the sector. prices and profitability fell again. tariffs could bring economic costs for the us, too. if you can increase the price of steel by 20% for your economy, then cars, and if it is aluminium, beer cans, the price of them will increase. and this will reduce demand from consumers because prices will be higher, and this will mean job loss. president trump's protectionist instincts should not be a surprise. it was a key part of his pitch to voters. could this be bluster, a negotiating or is it a genuine threat to the rules —based world order on

trade built over the past 70 years? history teaches us that it's a pretty powerful signal when the united states unilaterally announces tariffs. when it did it in 1930, some would say it caused the great depression. notjust because of the economic effect, but because when the united states says we are not going to abide by the rules, then no other country needs to abide by the rules. in the 1930s, when it broke the trust of countries to cooperate with one another, it is the breaking of trust that pushed the world into the great depression. the wto, 164 countries, has been bound together roughly by the notion that more trade can be better for everyone. the us now seems to be striking out alone. helen thomas there. how seriously should we take president trump's language on this issue?

and how much would it matter if he followed through? with me in the studio is pippa malgrem, a former special assistant on economic policy to president george w bush. joining us from washington is jeffrey schott — he's a senior fellow from the peterson institute for international economics, and sits on the president's trade and environment policy advisory committee. jeffrey, if i messed up the queue, 25% on steel and aluminium, it's not such a big industry in the big picture of american national income. how serious would it be if president trump does this? well, the problem of doing this will be that it raises the cost of production of goods in the united states, and the downstream problems that that will cause for us production and employment, and the reaction from our trading partners, as your segment just showed. there would be emulation by other countries and

possible retaliation, which would affect us export. what would have to happen for this to be if not the 1930s, to at least be a big reverse to trade and globalisation? i think the 1930s example is a little exaggerated. but i think your segment, your reporter, laid out the scenario is very well. there are a couple of steps that the european union can take that are consistent with wto rights and obligations, calling for consultations and dispute settlement, and imposing protections against the deflection of trade back to the european market. but taking retaliatory actions without prior authorisation from the wto would be more clearly illegal of wt0 rules than what the united states is doing. the tit—for—tat can grow, and where it stops, nobody knows. pepper, is that the problem here? it's notjust steal, it's the world down of a world rules —based order. possibly, but i've

just finished a job on leadership, and he was the first thing about trump. first committee throws a punch, and when his opponent is thrown sideways, then he says, let's talk. we are confusing the style that he negotiates with, and let's face it, he is a property guy, so with him everything is negotiable. on the day that this is announced, no coincidence, you also have the three most powerful men in china in washington, dc, and within 24 hours, the north koreans agreed to come to the table on the nuclear negotiations, and i think there's a chance that the way trump is looking at this is, he's connecting these as all one thing. again, who is he throwing a punch at? it wasn't just on steel,

it was a message to everybody. your scenario would be that this is big talk, everyone is going to sit around, it won't be as bad as it sounds on the day. let's face it, what we have so far is nothing formal, no policy statement. what we have is a tweet. you know, until we have something substantive. let's face it, we announced in the bush administration steel tariffs and it took one year from the formal announcement until anyone had any details. jeffrey, give some advice to the europeans so—called islamic state our last discussion on russia was about how to deal with a thug 01’ or a bully. but what do the europeans do? do theyjust say, though, have your silly tariff and we will not play this game, or should they retaliate?

there really is no good response. pippa is right about trump wanting to create a sense of unpredictability. he prides himself on that. and so a lot of people here and abroad don't know what he is going to do. but the rumours are the expectations are that he will announce an action tomorrow, and that that action is going to be effective in two weeks. so this is not something that will be pushed off for a long time, paper, this will be implemented soon. what is at issue right now, still under debate, is whether some countries will be exempted and whether some products will be exempted from the coverage. very briefly, you found it very difficult to try and get someone to defend it on the programme this evening, except the voters. the voters are shying away from globalisation. they may say, we would like to pay more for steel and have a steel injury. what is more ironic

is that china still has become more expensive and american steel has been remarkably competitive by comparison. in a way what the president is doing is fighting a fight that is ten years out of date. the chinese are investing in us manufacturing facilities. it is pandering to a particular audience that is maybe as out of date as the president. i have my doubts that we will really go down this road. thank you both very much indeed. for several years now, identity politics has been dominating public discourse. will thank you both very much indeed. for several years now, identity politics has been dominating public discourse. whether it is race, gender, or sexuality, the rights of, and respect for, different groups has been a prevalent theme of our time. but there are those who don't fit into the most obvious categories. bisexual people are not gay and are not straight, for example. and then of course, there are people of mixed race. now, that term didn't appear on the census until 2001, but it is now the fastest growing

ethnic minority in the uk, with the number of people of mixed race expected to rise to 2.2 million by 2031. so, how do they feel about the term mixed race and the rise of identity politics? do we expect people of dual heritage to self identify as mixed race even though that is itself a mixed category? or do they have choose one side of their ethnicity? newsnight producer scarlett barter, who has a black mother and white father, has been examining her own mixed identity, and reveals that it is much more complicated than it may seem. my parents met in plymouth in the ‘80s, when they were both studying. i think they were very awware that they were maybe slightly unconventional, being an interracial couple. they really encouraged us to embrace both sides of our heritage and both sides of their cultures. i mean, iam black, but i'm also white. and just because i have one parent that's black and one parent that's

white, it doesn't mean that, for me, i have to pick. it means i can be both. congratulations from all of us... but can't mixed race people really navigate both sides of their identity? meghan markle identifies as mixed race, but many have still tried to pigeonhole her as white or black. is it time that society just accepted that some people feel both? i definitely feel very other at times. i definitely feel like i'm quite unplaceable in people's minds. and i think that that makes people quite uncomfortable. people... lots of people, not everyone, feel much more comfortable when things are much more sort of clear—cut — you know, you're gay, you're straight, you're white, you're black, and i've never really felt like i can be so easily defined, and i think that people do struggle with that. but no two experiences of being mixed race are the same. 1.2 million people were recorded

as mixed race in the last census. that's1.2 million different ideas of what it means to be mixed race. even people within the same family can have totally different feelings about their identity. so, you guys are twins. you know, you have the same background, the same parents, — why is it that you think you identify so differently? i personally identify as mixed race. i know that some people try and identify as black or white, one or the other, but i think it's quite hard to determine, especially at a young age, where you fit in and who you are. and i think some people try and categorise you as one of the other, or you feel like you need to make a decision, but i think i got to the stage where i thought, i'm mixed race, i am both black and white. i'm slightly different. whilst i know i'm mixed race, that's what i tick on forms, i think it's too broad a term for me, and i identify mainly as black. i think what's probably caused it is, we went to very different schools.

i think there were less than ten people of colour in my whole school, and so, it's kind of a cycle, coming to terms with who you are. i always stuck out like a sore thumb, really. and i was always "the black one". so, that's what i've grown up with, and i'm embracing that now. i'm happy to call myself black rather than mixed race. i had a different experience. i went to a different school to my sister, but it was predominantly white and asian, but i felt that i had a lot... rather than feeling very much black, i think there was a lot of, but you're not black, and you're not white. you're kind of somewhere in the middle. it was quite weird. sometimes it's based on... people base those judgments on not necessarily the heritage of your parents — it's more about who they perceive you to be. i've always had my blackness questioned. and that's always hurt quite a lot because i feel like you're questioning my relationship with my mum, and a part of who i am. lots of times, i've had people come up to me and say,

oh, you're not black really. or, you're not really white, or whatever it may be. and that, that can be painful, yeah. it feels like i'm being forced by people to pick a side. some people do just identify as white or black, and that can make the term mixed race difficult. i don't like the term mixed race at all. i don't identify as mixed race, but i also think it's a really problematic term generally, because it kind of... it reinforces the idea that both black and white, if we're talking about black and white mixed raceness, are kind of neutral and natural racial categories that exist. you can't be half white. the racial construct white was not invented to allow entrance to people who are half white.

you're either white or you're not white. so, i often find it... interesting and slightly irritating when people ask about, um... people ask about choice, and they say, oh, like, you are choosing... the idea that you're kind of choosing the black side and you are erasing your white side. you're not given the choice. mixed race people are held up as sort of this example of a post—racial society, but actually, the reality is is that mixed race issues and mixed race people can often be very much overlooked and misunderstood. the rise of identity politics can mean that your background is becoming more and more important, but so much about forming your identity is about where you grew up and how you are perceived rather than your ethnic mix.

certainly, when i was growing up, there were like a handful of other mixed people that i knew, but whereas i was quite happy to identify as black and felt really proud of being nigerian and stuff, some of the other people, they were trying to distinguish themselves from just an ordinary black person and be like, no, no, no, but i'm half white, like, i'm better than these other black people, and that's something thatjust makes me feel... that's something that makes me feel like really uncomfortable. i don't want to try and distinguish myself from blackness, to put myself that little bit closer to whiteness, and i think that's one of the reasons that i so emphatically like identify, identify as black. i think that sometimes it can feel like, if you're mixed race, sometimes it feels like people don't. .. don't understand what that means, and they don't sort of engage with it in the way that

maybe you'd want them to, so sometimes it can feel like you're not really anything because you're not really seen as black and you're not really seen as white. but i would like to be seen as both, because that is what i am. as the number of people with dual heritage grows in the uk, will we become more accepting of those, like me, who want to be seen as mixed race? reflections from scarlet bartra. there was something of a cultural moment today. nme, the new musical express magazine, announced it will publish its final print edition this friday. it's been entertaining and informing music fans for 66 years, but from now on will only exist online. add a mental picture of some poor

quy add a mental picture of some poor guy who had the only contact with music was an mp. records were pressed and deleted a few months later. people fell into those who read nme, those who read melody maker and people who did not need your time of day. all bans will turn it did not matter but you knew it when. the core bans would hate doing

interviews. but they have no idea, it was like being on top of the pops. and people got it for free. anyone in a band read the nme whether they were younger. it was a conversation, people talking to other artists not just about politics and music that everything. nme did die a few years ago but what it was has not existed for a very long time. everybody knew at some point the paper publication was going to go. i knew that, you could see it happening at some point but publishing in the digital space is inevitably a completely different experience to what it was previously and we all get the music press that we deserve, in a way. your latest live weather update.

milder weather on the way. still cold enough for some snow across parts of the uk in the morning. some showers moving into parts of england and wales, maybe the rumble of thunder. this area of cloud followed behind will be an area of rain, sleet and some snow across parts of england. snow towards parts of wales, the midlands, in the northern england. and also in places where we could see a brief light covering. this is what it looks like first thing in the morning. into the midlands, parts of northern england, you could well see snow falling in the morning rush hour. be aware of that possibility and check before you head out in the morning. not expecting major snow but perhaps

enough to bring some disruption. this incredible pull away is words, sunny spells following. for scotland and northern ireland and icy and frosty start. a few showers following into west of scotland, wintry on hills. one to showers into england and wales. a lot of fine, sunny weather. it will fill cold and windy. just winds during the first pa rt windy. just winds during the first part of the day. winds easing on thursday night and frost settling in. friday morning, still some wintry showers around scotland, especially in the north and north—west. cloud in southern england. rain moving in in the evening. in most places a dry day and temperatures in single figures. this weather front causing the rain to the south. it will start to take

a rain northwards on saturday. as this weather system comes in, it is bringing in milderair this weather system comes in, it is bringing in milder airfrom the south. it is that which creeps northwards on the weekend and seized a recovery of temperatures across the board. it will not be a clear blue sky we can. we will all see some rain at some stage but those temperatures are heading up as the weekend goes on. just monitor the situation for snow. that is the latest broadcast. welcome to newsday on the bbc. the headlines: fears of a trade war running high as the white house confirms that new import tariffs will be signed off today. kim jong—un has asked south korea to ta ke jong—un has asked south korea to take a personal message to donald trump this week. how will the president react? also in the

programme, british police confirm a nerve agent was used in the attempted murder of a former russian spy attempted murder of a former russian spy in his daughter. and we have a story about how one of malaysia's top lawyers smashed away through the glass ceiling.