you're watching beyond one hundred days... there's a special place in hell for brexiteers without a plan, so says the president of the european council. donald tusk‘s outburst was certainly not the most diplomatic — but it does reflect growing furstration in brussels. the man who warned the uk that "winter is coming", now vents his frustrations at the politicians who campaigned for brexit. .. i've been wondering what the special place in hell looks like for those who promoted brexit without even a sketch of a plan how to carry it. donald trump's state of the union makes a ritual nod to political unity but it's really one for his own base. also on the programme... in richmond, virginia, the democrats are wracked by scandal, first the governor, now the attorney general admits he too blackened his face in the 1980s. and how nancy pelosi s clapping stole president trump s thunder at this year's state

of the union address. hello and welcome — i'm katty kay in washington and christian fraser is in london.. diplomacy, said winston churchill, is the art of telling people to go to hell in such a way that they ask for directions. perhaps in recent weeks many a european leader has wanted to tell the british prime minister where to go. but not before today, did someone express that frustration in quite such robust terms. enter donald tusk, president of the european council. mr tusk was meeting with the irish taoiseach, leo varadkar ahead of theresa may's visit to brussels tomorrow, to discuss the irish backstop. in his opening remarks it seemed mr tusk was still working to work towards a solution. but then came this, a comment he had clearly prepared and scripted. by the way, i've been wondering

what the special place in hell looks like for those who promoted brexit without even a sketch of a plan how to carry it. mr tusk also tweeted his thoughts, for the avoidance of any doubt. and to add insult to injury he was then caught on an open mic laughing about the likely angry response from the uk. thank you. you'll be in terrible trouble with the british press. yeah! leo va radkar was right. there was going to be a response in the british press. mr tusk‘s latest outburst has landed badly with some in the uk 7 with the cabinet minister andrea leadsom the first to weigh in. it is the sign of a charming fellow. the man has no manners. it is

unhelpful, regrettable, but it is a matter for him. what do we make of all that? katya adler, is in brussels for us. quite the curtain raiser? absolutely. it is helpful in heated times like these when political brinkmanship is the order of the day to take a step back from donald tusk and his comments and have a look at him the politician. all politicians have got their political style. donald tusk is the representative of the 27 eu countries in brussels and he doesn't actually have power over them but he represents them. he doesn't represent all eu views. he is known for a flamboyant colourful language and for being quite emotional, for enjoying public attention and for sometimes putting his foot in it. it was intentionally

or not intentional, but sadly those comments were part of his speech so it wasn't an off the cuff moment, but there are those who worry about the repercussions of that statement. and on the eve of the prime minister arriving in brussels and considering the difficult political dance she is performing in the uk in parliament, those statements were not helpful. from the perspective of the eu leaders, he was expressing a frustration that is certainly felt across europe at this ongoing brexit process. talk more about that. he said one thing and he may have said one thing for his irish audience, to show the eu still has ireland's back, over the border, show the eu still has ireland's back, overthe border, but show the eu still has ireland's back, over the border, but what about his comments, do they reflect about his comments, do they reflect a genuine frustration in europe that this has been a question of tricky

negotiations within the conservative party in london? to put it diplomatically. the statement he made that is exploding everywhere is having a go at the architects of brexit. saying they pushed for something and then had no plan in place. that is one thing and that is a commonly held view in eu circles. not the hell bit, but the idea that many of those who pushed for brexit did not know what they really wanted for the uk on the other side. frustration with the ongoing brexit process that parliament is so divided, that theresa may has not involved parliament all the way along as the eu has involved the european parliament in the knowledge that both of those parliaments need to vote on the brexit deal at the end of the day. that is commonly held in the eu, although you could say that shows a naivete about uk

politics which are partisan and very divided along mainly party lines. the other frustration held in europe, if you asked angela merkel, for example, they feel the uk voted for example, they feel the uk voted for brexit but then keeps coming back to brussels to make its departure painless and workable, but it was a uk decision. all of those are frustrations which i definitely felt in eu circles, not always expressed publicly —— which are definitely felt. but at the end of the day eu leaders want to find a brexit deal because if they don't it will be costly for them economically and politically and so those inflammatory comments from donald tusk aside, the intended eu message for theresa may ahead of the visit tomorrow is, the door is open, we are listening, but there's already negotiated deal on the table

negotiated deal on the table negotiated with you, and if you want changes it is up to you theresa may, not us, the eu, the exchanges which are palatable to the eu and the majority of mps in the uk. —— to get changes which are palatable. for now, thanks. when the debate becomes more shrill and the tension spill into the open, i think there is a deal in the offing, but maybe i am naive. i'm not altogether convinced that this is not good news for the prime minister because so far her game plan has been to crank up the pressure and to present this deal to her own party and say, it is this deal or no deal. the more the eu protests a nd deal or no deal. the more the eu protests and says, you cannot negotiate the widdall agreement, the better it is. i love your optimism. —— the withdrawal agreement.

the president spent 17 minutes talking about illegal immigration and the need for a border wall in his state of the union speech. it was the single longest segment of the address. it wasn't just the amount of time, it was the tone he took on the subject that signaled his intentions — despite a big loss in the mid terms and a damaging government shutdown, donald trump is not backing down on what is a priority for his base. there were by tradition the usual appeals to unity — but no indication of the compromise that would be necessary to suggest we are in for an era of real bipartisanship — on any issue. here's nick bryant with the night's highlights. madam speaker, the president of the united states! it was republican hands that reached out to greet him, but this, for the first time in his presidency, is a chamber dominated by democrats. last november's elections made congress look more like america, and donald trump acknowledged the history of this moment. exactly one century after congress passed the constitutional amendment

giving women the right to vote, we also have more women serving in congress than at any time before. most of the democratic women were dressed in suffragette white. many had entered politics as an act of resistance against him. the state of the union is like a television infomercial, and donald trump seemed to be selling a new product, a softer and more presidential version of himself, the polariser as unifier. we must reject the politics of revenge, resistance and retribution and embrace the boundless potential of cooperation, compromise and the common good. that got a rather quizzical response from the democratic house speaker, nancy pelosi. what looked like mocking applause, a shot that instantly went viral. usa!

republicans loved this speech. their patriotic chant sounding distinctly partisan. after appeals from the president for unity, words that could have come from his twitter feed, a swipe at the russian collusion probe. an economic miracle is taking place in the united states, and the only thing that can stop it are foolish wars, politics or ridiculous, partisan investigations. # happy birthday to you... congress did come together to sing happy birthday to an 81—year—old holocaust survivor, judah samet, who lived through last year's pittsburgh's synagogue shooting. in america these days, moments of harmony are rare. they wouldn't do that for me, judah. nick bryant, bbc news, washington. here to pick up on some

of the key themes from the president's speech is ab stoddard, associate editor at real clear politics. the 17 minutes spent on immigration, because although there were comments about unity and bipartisanship, when it came to the substantive issues, this was an appeal to his base and that he still would like the wall. he spent the most time talking about theissue he spent the most time talking about the issue of border security and making his case once again for a wall, accusing the democrats of standing in the way of him fulfilling his campaign promise, that mexico was going to pay for the wall, and we are no more closer to an end solution for president trump with the stalemate expiring next friday, we know he is emphatic and we know the democrats are not going to give him a wall and we know he

will not shut the government down. he is aware of how damaging that was to him politically but we don't know between now and then after the address last night just what between now and then after the address last nightjust what he is going to describe as victory. when he next gives a speech at the beginning of the year will we will beginning of the year will we will be —— we will be on campaign mode, did he do anything in his address last night to win over people in the middle of the political spectrum in the country? this speech was written by people who are trying to help president trump be better positioned for re—election next year after the disastrous midterms, and the damage the shutdown did to his poll numbers. he reached out with unifying tone, bipartisan messaging and lots of proposals to reach out to women, paid family leave, eradicating aids, attacking childhood cancer, initiatives for economic development for women around the world, this was truly an outreach, a determined effort by the

president to change the page and try to speak to the middle of the electorate again. he has got to follow through in the weeks to come, but it was notable that he was trying to be a different president. there was a line that stood out for me, he said we renew our resolve that america will never be a socialist country. is there a clue as to how he will run the campaign in 2020? absolutely. he was campaigning for election last night himself and trying to frame the democratic party as extreme, for open borders, and also socialists, and the democrats played into his hands, many of them refused to clap and that will be a theme which we will hear a lot through 2019 and next year's election campaign. stay with us. i want to pick up the general feeling of the speech. you

we re general feeling of the speech. you were not very impressed by the speech. no. i thought it were not very impressed by the speech. no. ithought it was long. over 80 minutes. there was a disjointed quality, it felt from a stylistic perspective as if it had been written almost by committee with a section on cancer leading international security, someone said it was like having the sponge in the ca ke it was like having the sponge in the cake with no filling. the bigger question is about state of the union generally and whether they make a difference in american political life. i can think of two men have actually shown a reset in the country, bill clinton in 96, saying the era of big government is over and that he was going to work with republicans. the other one was george bush after the attacks of 9/11 and talking about the axis of

evil, which really put the country ona evil, which really put the country on a warfooting. if evil, which really put the country on a war footing. if you take those two out it is hard to look at any stage of the union address and say they had a lasting impact on the presidency and the politics of the country and legislation —— state of the union. i suspect that will be the union. i suspect that will be the same out of last night.|j the union. i suspect that will be the same out of last night. i saw a poll this morning, those who watched, predominantly people from the republican party, they seemed to enjoy it. he isa he is a conservative champion and people on the right liked it. yes. the question is, amongst speech watches, the whole country used to sit down and watch the state of the union, but that is increasingly not the case. it started under barack obama that the audiences were predominantly democratic and now the audiences are predominantly

republican. you you know your party is in trouble when the boss is accused of a racist past, the number two is accused of sexual harassment and then today up pops the number three to say he too has a troubling racist incident to report. such is the democratic party in virginia where all three top leaders have problems. you'll remember we told you earlier this week that this photo had emerged from democratic governor ralph northam's college yearbook showing one man dressed in kkk robes next to another with a blackened face. then his deputy, justin fairfax — the man who would replace northam if he's forced to go — virginia's lieutenant governor was accused of sexual harassment. and today the number 3 in line — the attorney general, mark herrring had to confess that he too had blackened his face in college. to say it's been a bad week for democrats in virginia is an understatment. what is going on? virginia has this

very difficult past and these white quys very difficult past and these white guys are very difficult past and these white guys are representative of that? is the party negligent because they should have known about these issues? what is going on? republican party officials are wondering how they have never found this out when they have never found this out when they have never found this out when they have campaigned against these officials. i find this incredibly distressing and astonishing, the numberof distressing and astonishing, the number of scandals and the fact they don't have anyone to step up. ralph northam remains the governor today. mark herring is the attorney general, but he knew he had dressed and worn a black face, and yet he called on the governor to go. this is not something republicans do or people from the deep south do, and this is a conversation people need to have, i don't remember anyone doing things like this in the 19805,

or since, but apparently it happens all the time. people were talking about people coming in to college partie5 about people coming in to college parties in blackface la5t about people coming in to college parties in blackface last year. this ha5 parties in blackface last year. this has got to stop and people have got to understand why this is offensive. the silver lining is it is a 5courge of both parties which needs to be addre55ed of both parties which needs to be addressed by the entire citizenry. thanks forjoining us. worth remembering, it wasn't that long ago that these people were doing it. the us secretary of state mike pompeo guaranteed allies that america still plans to lead the global fight against the islamic state, despite its planned military withdrawal from syria. he was speaking to representatives from nearly 80 countries who ve worked alongside the us to defeat the group. this morning, mr pompeo sought to clarify the mixed messaging over the move from the trump administration. the drawdown of troops is essentially a tactical change. it is not a change in the mission. it does not change the structure, de5ign

or authorities on which the campaign has been based. it simply repre5ent5 a new stage in an old fight. the drawdown will be well coordinated and our policy priorities in syria have remained unchanged. mike pompeo it speaking a short while ago. our correspondent barbara plett usher is at the state department and joins us now. how much damage control does america have to do at the moment? he has to do quite a lot because this is the group that has stood alongside the us in the fight against islamic state, nearly 80 members, and president trump did not consult them when he made the decision to withdraw troops from syria. he is coming here shortly, a month late, to talk to them, to reassure them in the same way that mike pompeo has tried to do, but there is no question that there is uncertainty. the men who have been leading the

american side, james mattis and brett mcgurk, they have resigned because i don't agree with president trump's policy. —— they don't. the pentagon and the intelligence services say isis is still a threat, it is coming back as an insurgency and it will return if the military pressure is relieved. 0k, barbara, thanks. let's speak to hagar chemali who is the former spokesperson for the us mission to the united nations. un monitors today said they estimate there is something like ill—18,000 so—called islamic state fighters in syria and iraq and they think this is the most significant threat of all terror groups around the world. how does that square with what the united states is trying to tell allies and the coalition in the region? there were mixed messages

that continued in this speech by mike pompeo. it wasn't the first time he mentioned a tactical change and he has been saying this since december to cover and he has been saying this since decemberto coverup and he has been saying this since december to cover up for the president's statement. we know isis is not defeated, and the current edition has made great gains in undermining isis —— the coalition. in terms of the territory they were overseeing and occupying, but there are a numberof overseeing and occupying, but there are a number of fighters that remain, some that remain unaccounted for, and we know isis is financing itself for a resurgence. we know isis is trying to make a comeback or to have a resurgence in africa and southeast asia, isis is by no means dead and it has influenced globally as we know, attacks that have taken place globally in europe and the

united states and across asia, it is everywhere. to argue that this is an old fight is naive. to imply that we are close and we just need a few tactical changes, really undermines the threat at hand. the united states has not been very good at nation building in the last 30 yea rs, nation building in the last 30 years, stabilising regions where they have intervened, and they are urging the country is to be more involved, but it is very difficult in syria because the government does not want them there. absolutely. the idea that we can own it syria and that we could fix it to the way we wa nt that we could fix it to the way we want to support a stable transition to democracy is a goal that we used to democracy is a goal that we used to have as the united states when i was involved with the white house, but i think that is an unachievable goal and i know that with this kind of move we have allowed for russia

and turkey and iran to step into syria and exert their influence and to take the course, and they have a greater chance at doing that because they are close with assad and given they are close with assad and given the finances they have provided to him that they have changed the course of the crisis there. but to argue that would be our goal, that would be naive, and at this stage the focus of the us troops at least in the area they liberated in syria had to do with development and reconstruction, and allowing the internally displaced persons and refugees to return. that affects the united states and europe and everywhere. thanks forjoining us. that was an issue which was addressed in the state of the union speech last night. the house speaker nancy pelosi was inscrutable last night. there she was, sitting on the left shoulder of the president, the eyes of the nation upon her, and barely a flicker of emotion. until this moment... mr trump had just urged people to reject the politics of revenge, and to embrace

a new spirit of compromise. and he turned to ms pelosi — who gave him this clap. and i don't know about you, but that doesn't strike me as wholly sincere. yeah... i have something to say on the choreography of that. twitter had a field day. how about this one from mikeljollett — "when i tell my wife i changed a diaper". oh and the fun doesn't stop there. rememberjoshua trump? we told you about him last night. the 11 year old bullied because of his last name who was invited to the speech. look, it was 80 minutes long. even katty kay found it hard going. so who would blamejoshua for dozing off during the presidential address? he woke up an internet sensation, some calling him a hero of the anti—trump resistance.

i have a theory about nancy pelosi. i don't think she was applauding at donald trump, i think she was applauding at the women, the democratic women who were the other side of him and she was applauding at them to stand up. we would have to look at the replays of that to see what happened. that is just my theory. i like that theory. this is beyond 100 days from the bbc. coming up for viewers on the bbc news channel and bbc world news — president trump's inauguration committee are forced to hand over documents to investigators — looking at how they raised over a 100 million dollars. and theresa may goes on the charm offensive in northern ireland — trying to reassure people she can secure a brexit deal that avoids a hard border. that's still to come. we have some very strong winds on

the way. overnight tonight and into england and wales. seems like this represent the calm before the storm. storm in question is looking increasingly menacing on the satellite picture. what started off as an innocuous —looking lump of cloud has been getting bigger and more powerful, this is a rapidly deepening area of low pressure racing to our shores and that will bring very strong winds overnight. the strongest will be heading into the south of wales through the bristol channel and across south—west england where we will easily get winds of 70 mph strong enough to bring down trees in places so the risk of some disruptive weather. the strong winds will surge across the midlands towards the end the night where we could have localised disruption. away from that, rain further north and snow in the scottish mountains to watch out for, i miss overnight, 3—4 in the

north —— temperatures overnight. the centre stage is set for the strong winds and they will continue to blow anywhere from yorkshire south, and it will take awhile for them calm down. many will have a dry day with a few spells of sunshine but plenty of showers across western and southern areas. temperatures, mild, but it is the winds which will cause problems, we are likely to have transport disruption and power cuts area transport disruption and power cuts are a possibility. we are not dined with the wet and windy weather, as we entered the week we have another area of low pressure racing from the atla ntic area of low pressure racing from the atlantic —— we are not done. severe gales across the uk, reaching 50—70 mph in places. outbreaks of rain will be heavy and extensive, there could be localised surface flooding, and the winds, coming in from the

westerly direction, but it will stay on the mild side. into the weekend, it will be generally pretty uncertain with further rain at times and strong winds, the potential for some very strong south across sunday but there is uncertainty in the detail at the moment. this is beyond one hundred days... with me, katty kay, in washington, christian fraser is in london. our top stories: federal prosecutors in new york put president trump's inaugural committee under the microscope — as investigators look for a series of potential crimes. the leader of the taliban's peace negotiations with the us says the insurgents do not want to seize all of afghanistan. coming up in the next half hour: donald trump nominates a top treasury official as the new world bank president, but critics say david malpass is the wrong man for the job. plus the swedish crown jewels stolen from a cathedral last year that have been found ina bin. forget the mueller probe and russia

and collusion and focus instead for a moment on balls, and music and beautiful dresses. yes, they are now under scrutiny after federal prosecutors ordered president trump's inaugural committee to hand over documents related to funding for the 2017 inauguration celebrations. prosecutors are reportedly looking at who donated money, how it was used and whether there was any pay to play going on. one question is whether any foreign donors gave money to the inaugural committee — which would violate law because it creates possible conflict of interest. with me now is the former assistant us attorney, kim wehle. thanks for coming in. what is it prosecutors are suspicious about on this inaugural committee? prosecutors are suspicious about on this inaugural committee ?m prosecutors are suspicious about on

this inaugural committee? it was $107 million donated to the committee and the expenses were a lot less tha n committee and the expenses were a lot less than with prior presidents. the pay—out should have been a lot less. the question is where the money went. the two big legal issues, did some of this money come from foreign donors? that would be illegal, that is number one. number two, the donors had to be disclosed. there are questions as to weather that piece of it was disclosed. there are links to other actors in the muller probe, potentially russia, mr cohen, the ukrainians, maybe the saudis. this has in locations well beyond just paying for pretty dresses. the dresses were great! you mentioned how much money was raised, let's comparator to how much money was raised and how much was spent by previous inaugurations. president bush had eight balls, president bush had eight balls, president obama raised a0 million

and had ten balls. mr trump raised 100 million but only had three balls. can i interact, how does this work, because for people this side, there are a number of inauguration balls around washington, dc and the president dives into each one? on inauguration day it starts with a big band, lots of celebrations, music, than the actual inauguration and swearing in and oath of office. then all around town there are several balls. the president attends several balls. the president attends several of them. president trump only attended one or two but only held three. i think that is the red flag. in addition to their is no money trail, it's unclear where the money trail, it's unclear where the money went. there is $107 million so was it pocketed ? money went. there is $107 million so was it pocketed? was their quid pro quo? orwas was it pocketed? was their quid pro quo? or wasjust was it pocketed? was their quid pro quo? or was just misused? was it pocketed? was their quid pro

quo? orwasjust misused? president obama had 200 something, for hundreds something totally employee is, spent $6 million. mr trump had 200 something employees and spent a lot more. itjust doesn't sit right in terms of logic. the bigger question is whether people were using straw donors, american straw donors, foreigners to basically pay through the inaugural committee to get favours from the trump administration? that would be a serious mark on democracy, that has broader implications for the democratic process and integrity of the electoral process. if i am a russian oligarch and like pretty dresses, if i paid a lot of money to go to one of these bowls to get access, with that know, great question. the subpoena that was issued indicates what the prosecutor is thinking about that includes conspiracy to defraud the

united states, so to the extent to which these kinds of deals were made in order to corrupt or influence the process of appointments to federal judgeships, appointments to the president's cabinets, or to get policy favours in exchange, that could be a corrupt process that would give rise to a conspiracy. then we also have potential money—laundering, tax fraud, bank fraud, transactions that were basically —— were not on the up and up. that is just basically —— were not on the up and up. that isjust plain basically —— were not on the up and up. that is just plain than electron law violations. follow the money. thank you for coming in. they are looking for an american citizen, there was a breakfast meeting on the question is whether foreign donors we re question is whether foreign donors were present who gave him money who themselves —— you then himself gave $900,000 to the inaugural committee, and was it his money orforeign

money? there is always a question about whether —— when you give money toa about whether —— when you give money to a politician, are you expecting something in return? you have laws in place that try to restrict the possibility of a conflict of interest or bribery or corruption. one of the laws on the statutes in the us is that you cannot accept foreign money which is part of the reason the southern district of new york prosecutors are looking into this. interesting. the leader of the taliban's peace negotiations with the us has told the bbc that his group has no plans to seize control of afghanistan using military force. sher mohammed abbas stanizki did, however, say that the taliban would not agree to a ceasefire until all foreign forces left his country. the taliban are currently in moscow holding talks with other afghan powerbrokers. they've also been speaking to the us, as president trump explained in his state of the union address. in afghanistan my administration is

holding constructive talks with a number of afghan groups, including the taliban. as we make progress at these negotiations, we will be able to reduce our trips presents. interesting segment in the state of the union last night. earlier i spoke to secunder kermani the bbc‘s pakistan and afghanistan correspondent, who is in moscow. these preliminary peace talks do appear to be gathering pace, you have followed this closely, have they got a real chance of success? they are gathering momentum but they are also becoming increasingly complicated. there are two separate strands to this, one is that the us taliban peace talks that have been taking place in the gulf, we saw la st taking place in the gulf, we saw last month the special envoy on reconciliation in afghanistan say that they had reached a draft framework for an agreement

concentrating primarily on getting a commitment from the us that they would be happy to withdraw american troops in principle and a commitment in return from the taliban that they would prevent afghanistan becoming a base for internationaljihadist groups. then we have this second strand of talks which have been going on over the past two days in moscow. that involves the taliban and also senior afghan opposition politicians. these talks have been much more controversial. those taking part in them say that they are an opportunity to start a dialogue between power brokers in afghanistan and the taliban about how the country could be governed. but the afghan government is being very dismissive of these talks, saying they are an attempt by the political rivals to exclude them from the process and to explore the possibility of reaching a deal with the taliban without involving any of their input. the key issue here is

that the taliban are still refusing to talk directly to the government in cavil. they must be aware, i don't know whether they followed closely the state of the union, but they must be aware since he made reference to it last night that there is an appetite in washington now to withdraw. but that may be a small window of opportunity. who knows if someone succeeds president trump, maybe they don't have the same policy towards afghanistan. certainly the taliban representatives i was speaking to here in moscow said to me that they we re here in moscow said to me that they were clear that they think president trump is someone who wants to bring this conflict to an end. in their words, bring peace to afghanistan. they certainly welcome his stance, but there has been criticism from other quarters where people feel the kind of desire of president trump to

get out of afghanistan, that he has broadcast quite openly, could be damaging to america's leveraging the negotiations. and there is a risk that the progress that has been made in afghanistan on issues such as women's rights, for example, could be sacrificed if a deal is made in it too hasty away because the attention —— the intention isjust to get out rather than resolve the underlying issues. fascinating. thank you. isn't that an interesting point? that here is the president revealing his hands and may be undermining the negotiation with the taliban. who got all the criticism for showing his hand to early? you remember it was donald trump during the state of the 2016 campaign who kept saying that president obama had a lwa ys kept saying that president obama had always signalled what he would do in military operations and that undermined the us's position to take action. now it seems he is doing exactly that. i'm still confused

that you have just switched sides on our screen! donald trump's state of the union address wasn'tjust watched in the united states, but also all over the world. we spoke earlier to gustav gressel, from the european council of foreign relations — and i asked him how trump's speech went down on the european continent. the reception of the speech was that donald trump show that he loves himself and think that he will make america great again. we all know that. there is not much of an interest in it. basically you said it, they are going to wait it out. key signal during this speech that the us will withdraw from the intermediate arranged nuclear forces treaty with russia which he talked about last week. then he made this comment about the intent of the united states to build and develop missiles. we really have no choice. perhaps we can negotiate a different

agreement, adding china and others. or perhaps we can't, in which case we will outspend and out innovate all others by fire. that is of the greatest interest to the eastern europeans because if there is an arms race, nato missiles would presumably be on their territory and they are on the border with russia. this is of interest in all of europe because russian missiles can reach down to the pyrenees. what will happen if a crisis develops? will the next president, or will this president, especially this one, stick to the europeans in such a moment? angela merkel has made this point before that europe needs to look after itself. yes, and europeans have unfortunately been too reluctant to make use of their own potential. i'm not talking about

nuclear missiles but the military situation is a very, catered, in defensive and nuclear weapons. on the conventional weapons inside, new technologies and breakthroughs have been achieved since the imf was signed, that europeans here could do much more to hatch against a backdrop of the us losing interest in europe. bank you very much. -- thank you. theresa may has been on a charm offensive in northern ireland, meeting politicians from the main parties, and trying to reassure them that her committment to avoiding a hard border on the island is ‘unsha keable'. it has not been entirely successful. this morning sinn fein accused her of running down the clock on brexit and called for a referendum on irish unity, in the event of a no deal scenario. for many in ireland, the backstop is not just about barriers, or customs, or tariffs. it's about the fragile peace which exists for communities on both sides of the border.

here's what the leader of sinn fein, mary lou mcdonald, had to say after meeting with the prime minister. that the british strategy of running down the clock and is playing a game of chicken with ireland and irish interests is profoundly unacceptable and wrong. if british politics is incapable of acknowledging and upholding the good friday agreement and preventing a hardening of the border, then the only last option, the backstop of last resort, is a referendum on irish unity. we're joined now by something increasingly rare in british politics — two people from different sides of the brexit debate who have found common ground. david henig, who directs the uk trade policy project is in westminster, and daniel moylan — former adviser to foreign secretary borisjohnson — is in our london studio. welcome to you both. i was saying

yesterday on the programme that there is a feeling that the negotiation over the backstop has been very top—down, that it is the big players that are dictating the play. we have just big players that are dictating the play. we havejust seen big players that are dictating the play. we have just seen from marylou mcdonald's, the fairly robust pushback, talking about a referendum for reunification. that illustrates quite clearly just how for reunification. that illustrates quite clearlyjust how fragile the peace processes. as you say, david andi peace processes. as you say, david and i have very different views on the backstop but came together today to write this article saying it is amazing how politicians have ignored the deep community issues and other techniques available to them to try and address the, —— the issues in northern ireland and across the border. and to try and sustain the peace process that has been going for 20 years. whether you have a backstop or not on the island of ireland, and we think that discussion should be further forward as well. it took an international commission and outsiders to come in

and sort out the good friday agreement with the help of the irish and british governments. do we need something similarfor and british governments. do we need something similar for this brexit issue? certainly what we need to do, and what we both think, is to take this away from an argument about technology that could help the irish border and take it back to a discussion among political parties in northern ireland, the uk and irish governments and potentially a new commission that looks at these issues. and brings in outsiders if that will help. something to take it away from the entirety of brexit appears to rest on ireland. i'm not sure northern ireland and ireland wa nt sure northern ireland and ireland want the whole of brexit resting on them. i'm not sure anyone would like them. i'm not sure anyone would like the whole of brexit resting on their shoulders! given how fragile politics is at the moment, particularly in northern ireland, can the country withstand, can northern ireland withstand another two years of negotiation if we have

the withdrawal agreement and then still another —— and then still the trade ago she asians? this will prolong the political uncertainty. one of the issues is that we don't wa nt to one of the issues is that we don't want to speak about what might happen in border situations. you end up happen in border situations. you end up with some slightly strange m essa 9 es up with some slightly strange messages and no one being clear about what will happen. therefore the answer i'm coming to is, no, you need a process to help manage this. all of that pressure is going to be difficult to withstand. let's find another way to deal with it. you and david have described northern ireland as the child of a difficult divorce in this process, the fragile child that might get damaged. how concerned are you? everyone is rightly concerned. the first question is what we are doing about existing institutions. the good friday agreement gives us a northern ireland assembly, a north—south

cooperation council, east—west co—operation mechanisms. the assembly is practically defunct at the moment. we never hear anything about the north—south cooperation, the east—west cooperation mechanisms. the first question is, is the european union, the government of the united kingdom and ireland, are the three of them taking their responsibilities seriously enough towards their existing institutions? and what can they do to make them more prominent and more ambitious? on top of that, you could consider what the eu can do, and the uk, in relation to the peace fund that already exists, which is due to expire in 2020. could there not be a commitment that it will continue for the next eu budget round into 2027? i5 it will continue for the next eu budget round into 2027? is it too much to ask that it could be promised even if it really belongs in the future? all these arcane issues about what is in the future relationship, wouldn't it be sensible to do something like that? then you have the question, as you

do in other communal disputes that exist throughout the world, and as you had 20 years ago with the good friday agreement, is there a role for outsiders in terms of mediation, confidence building, bringing people together? all of these things will probably need to happen, we think do need to happen, whether you have a backstop or not, even if the withdrawal agreement go through exactly as it is today. the governments are not taking their responsibilities seriously. very interesting to get your thoughts, thank you very much. this is beyond one hundred days. still to come — sweden's crown jewels — which were stolen last summer — appear to have turned up in a stockholm bin. details coming up. the earth could now be in its warmest period since records began some hundred and fifty years ago — that's according to forecasts by the met office. climate scientists say we could start to see weather

events on a scale we've never experienced before. here's our science correspondent, rebecca morelle. from the devastating flooding that is inundating australia, forcing thousands from their homes, to the deadly forest fires that raged across the united states last year. and the record—breaking temperatures seen here and across europe over the summer. it has been a year of extremes and now scientists warned there could be more to come. the long—term climate projections say... researchers at the met office have been tracking global temperatures, and their new forecast suggests we could be in the middle of the warmest decade since records began. this is worrying because it is a new level of temperature extremes. and the regional impact of that are unlikely to be unprecedented in some regions. we are likely to see things we have not seen in over 100 years

of observational records. a temperature rise of 1.5 celsius above preindustrial levels is set as above preindustrial levels is set as a threshold by un scientists. anything more could lead to dangerous global impacts. have a look at this graph. the red shows the prediction of the met office has made over the years. the black line shows the actual temperatures they recorded. there is a close match. the last four years were the hottest on record. this blue area is their forecast for the next five years. it suggests the warming trend will continue with a small chance temperatures could temporarily exceed 1.5 degrees. all eyes will now be watching to see if this forecast plays out. scientists warn the time to act is running out fast. david malpass thinks international financial institutions are corrupt, inefficient, spend too much money

and are generally rather useless. which might make him an odd choice to run one of the biggest international financial institutions in the world. in the past half an hour, mr malpass has been confirmed as donald trump's choice to run the world bank. custom has it that the europe chooses the imf head but the us picks the world bank chief. so why is mr malpass a controversial pick? he was the chief economist at the investment bank bear stearns until it collapsed in 2008 at the start of the global financial crisis — which he failed to foresee. some have also noted that he has fewer qualifications than the other contenders. let's speak to our business reporter samira hussain who's in new york. does it matter who is the head of the world bank? that depends on whether you think the world bank really matters. if you are someone who believes that it still does, who

leads that institution is really quite important. of course his nomination by the trump administration is raising a bit of debate about what the future holds for the world bank, given some of these scathing remarks he has made in the past. about these big multinational institutions like the world bank, calling them really big and inefficient. there are people worrying about what this means for the future of the bank. the white house's senior administration officials has pushed back saying what we want to see is a more modernised version of the bank, and he is someone who can do that. this is one thing that people may not be aware of, but china is one of the biggest borrowers from the world bank. people might ask why, which is a fairly booming economy, is borrowing from the world bank at great rates but it does. the world bank has said that they will wind

down lending to china. i5 bank has said that they will wind down lending to china. is this an attack on multinational institutions that mrtrump attack on multinational institutions that mr trump doesn't like or is this about china? there is the key. absolutely. he is someone that has really gone out and spoken out against china, and the fact that it gets any against china, and the fact that it gets a ny loa ns against china, and the fact that it gets any loans from the world bank. he has also spoken against china's policies in terms of how it lends money to other developing nations. their lending policies can be quite brutal. he has spoken quite forcefully against that. and he is pa rt forcefully against that. and he is part of the chump ministration that has been involved in negotiations between china and the united states. there are a lot of people wondering how much this is going to be about the united states also trying to exert more influence in the world bank to try and counter the influence we are seeing from china. good to get your thoughts. i think

it does matter, i was being provocative! watts of people in washington who are nervous when someone comes and who does not seem to like international financial institutions. —— lots of people. and finally — the mystery of a stolen collection of seventeenth—century crown jewels has been solved in sweden — sort of — after the treasures were found in a rubbish bin. last summer a pair of thieves made off with two crowns and an orb worth over seven million dollars from a hilltop cathedral sixty miles outside stockholm in broad daylight. the pair then dissappea red into the capital's lake system on a speedboat. despite the arrest of a suspect back in september — police had been unable to find the treaures. that was until yesterday, when the jewels were recovered from the stockholm bin. or does that now make it a royal bin? police have been working intensely to confirm very ha rd to

very hard to shift on ebay! did they not have better security? the swedish royal family perhaps they need better security. it was a proper heist. hello. some very strong winds on the way overnight tonight and into thursday across parts of england and wales. seems like this from today represent the calm before the storm. the storm in question is looking menacing on the satellite picture. what started as an innocuous lump of how —— mcleod has been getting bigger and more powerful. this is rapidly deepening, this low—pressure racing towards our shores. bringing strong winds overnight. the strongest of those winds into the south of wales initially, through the bristol channel and in south—west england where we will easily get gusts of around 60 to 70

mph. bringing drown trees and places of the risk of some disruptive weather. from there the strong winds will surge across the midlands, central and southern england, the saudis towards the end of the night where we could also see some localised disruption. —— the south—east. snow in the scottish mountains to watch out for as well. temperatures overnight, three or a degrees in the north, six or seven for many of us further south. the centre stage is set for those strong winds which will continue thursday morning, the strongest across to eastern england, anywhere from yorkshire, lincolnshire southwards. many of us will have a dry day with some spells of sunshine but there will be plenty of showers across western and southern areas to watch out for. mild temperatures for most of us but really it is the winds that will cause problems. we are likely to see transport disruptions and power cuts. tonight and into

thursday as well. as we end the week another area of low—pressure racing from the atlantic. this one bringing widespread gales and severe gales across the united kingdom, with gusts reaching 50 to 70 mph in places. outbreaks of rain will be heavy and extensive, localised surface water flooding. winds coming from the south—west, it will state mild with temperatures around ten or 11 degrees. into the weekend, it is going to stay pretty unsettled with further rain at times and strong winds. potential of some very strong winds. potential of some very strong wind is across the south on sunday. there is some uncertainty in the detail of the moment. this is bbc news. the headlines at 8pm... calls for an apology from european council president donald tusk — as theresa may prepares to return to brussels — he takes aim at the uk's brexiteers by

by the way, i have been wondering what the special place and how it looks like for those who promoted brexit without even a sketch of a plan for how to carry it safely. the coroner overseeing the inquest into the death of teenager molly russell — is writing to four social media companies, to demand access to her internet history. you were not supposed to do that, thank you very much. a rare moment of unity in a divided america,