forthe trump stump, today president trump confirmed he was totally serious. the secretary of homeland security, working with myself and my staff, will begin immediate construction of a border wall. applause the united states of america gets back control of its borders, gets back its borders. can we go ahead? but, as previous presidents have found, it is one thing to sign and seal and another to deliver. on his second full day in office, president obama ordered the closing of guantanamo bay. but it stubbornly outlasted even his second term in office. his plans were locked up by an uncooperative congress. so might donald trump's wall meet similar obstacles? its obstacle is literary, build a wall. there are a lot of nuts and bolts in the process. first of all, the money has to be appropriated, it has to go to congress, and there is the question of what the physical wall looks like. if some of it fencing, and is some of it a virtual wall? today was basically a message that they are serious about doing something wall related. but there are of course already extensive physical barriers on the us—mexican border but they have been placed where people might try to cross. previous administrations have seen little point in adding to extensively to the natural border provided by an inhabitable desert. most undocumented immigrants come in through other means, student visas or work visas or tourist and they overstay. this isn't an issue where vast numbers of people are physically crossing the border in an undocumented sense. there are some, of course, but the majority come to the us for other means and the wall does not prevent that. and then there is the second part of the promise, the funding. remember i said, mexico is paying. but how? that was what mr trump was asked in his first sit—down interview as president. we will be starting those negotiations with mexico relatively soon and we will be in a form reimbursed. they will pay us back? 100%. the american taxpayer will pay at first? we will be reimbursed at a later date from whatever transaction we make. the mexican president said recently that mexico will not pay and those against their dignity as a country and as mexicans. i think he has to say that. he has to say that. and he may say that to mr trump's face when the president visits washington next week, that is if the mexican president doesn't cancel the visit altogether, as some unconfirmed reports have suggested. so which stones will the president add to his policy edifice next? after signing today's executive orders, the new york times tonight reports that two new orders are being prepared, limiting us involvement in the un and other international bodies. but mr trump will know that politics is about creating alliances, persuading people and, yes, doing deals, and even presidents sometimes struggle to get what they want. so is the wall an obvious solution that fails to address any of the real problems, or is this the right starting point for a country acknowledging its immigration problem? joining me now, arturo sarukhan, former mexican ambassador to the united states. this was clearly no empty threat, then. this is actually being built. well, we don't know exactly what's going to be built. if we take donald trump, president trump at face value, and i think we should after 18 months of campaign and these first days of the administration, there may be some form of brick and mortar wall that goes up, but again this is a decision that will do very little to alter the reality either of how undocumented immigration is coming into and staying in the us, or fundamentally alter some of the underpinnings of us national security and how you can guarantee that in the 21st century. is your sense that president nieto should cancel his planned trip next week? i think it will be very hard for him to come up next week, as was envisaged, in part because you still don't have a us administration that has its cabinet members confirmed and, given that mexico has said it will put every single issue of the bilateral agenda on the table, that means engaging with every single agency at the department of washington, dc, it's going to be hard to come and discuss a full agenda when you don't have the counterparts across the table because there are still to be confirmed by the sudden sennett. but, because of this decision today, which could be construed by many an ambush, while high—level mexican officials are in town, starting those conversations leading up to the visit, but if this is going to be the way policy is put forward in terms of "my way or the highway", it may make sense for the president to postpone and come back at a better time. can you have decent relations now between mexico and the us? donald trump said this evening that mexico's economic future is important to the us, and john kelly, his homeland adviser, said that the relations were imperative. can those two countries still have them? absolutely, these two countries arejoined at the hip. they have to succeed together. failure for one means failure for the other. we have $1.1; billion of trade going across the border every day and 35 million mexican—americans in the us. we have 1.2 million americans living in mexico and it is imperative that both countries continue to build what we've been doing for the past 20 years. you say that as if that is the perfect solution, but what we are hearing tonight is that donald trump has put nafta on the agenda. if he pulls out of that, the mexican economy is sunk, isn't it? it's not sunk, but it will be dramatically impacted, but so will the us economy. there are 6 million usjobs depending directly on trade with mexico, so if you are a president that has run on an agenda of bringing backjobs to america, if you destroy nafta, you destroy 6 million usjobs in a brushstroke. so, when donald trump says that mexico will reimburse him for the building of this wall, he is 100% certain, he said this evening, is there truth in that? would mexico pay money or, i don't know, continued membership of the us in nafta? is there a deal to be done whereby you do pay for the wall? i don't think that is on the table. i think mexico and the us have done and can continue to do great things together, but one thing i don't think they are going to do is build a wall. there are of course measures the president could take on remittances, tariffs and trade, but i don't think he will see mexican monies from the mexican treasury coming across the border to pay for the wall. thank you forjoining us. joining me now, max fisher, analyst at the new york times who's breaking the story tonight about the moves trump is making to minimize the us role in the united nations. this is something that would affect us all, of course. just explain what you are hearing. there two executive orders that are in draft form that are circulating the white house now, and they are currently planning to sign them in the end of the week. the first would review a huge subset of multilateral treaties that the united states is currently engaged in. it's not clear which treaties they have in mind, but it sure looks like it opens up planet and environmental agreements currently in force to be abrogated. the second and in some ways bigger one is reviewing funding for the united nations, and this draft executive order, if signed, would do two things. it would terminate any us funding for any un agency that needs a subset of conditions, any support for abortion programmes, there are a few rules that are very vague, something about it including help for countries that opposed the united states, and they would cut funding, not sure what that means. once they have done that, the order would mandate a 40% cut in all us funding towards the united nations, any un agency or any other international organisations, which would amount to billions of dollars. it's not clear where that cut would come from, but the order singled out peacekeeping, which is very concerning because the us holds a huge amount of international peacekeeping, and a few other items. reading between the lines, because your report suggests a lot of it would be auditing and reducing, terminating funding for any organisation controlled or influenced by any state which sponsors terrorism, a lot of this would sound quite sensible at first glance, cutting down on waste to a bloated organisation. you think it's more than that? and you have to remember that a really big amount of us funding to un doesn't go to stay closed or red pens out towards peacekeeping operations. the us funds about 27% of the un's peacekeeping operations, a lot of aid to refugees. these programmes are already stretched thin. there are currently peacekeeping operations in 16 countries. if the us cuts almost half its funding for those, the operations won't go away, but it has pretty significant ramifications for the people living in those countries, mali, cyprus, lebanon, places which are not really a great position to have a bunch of un leave suddenly because the united states no longer wants to be part of the united nations as fully. do we know if the paris climate change deal is injeopardy, and do we know which parts of the organisations on the treaties, the executive order is very short, treaties that it is targeting, which is anything unrelated to extradition, directly related to trade or national security, would be reviewed, and this commission they are setting up would have to look at it and say, yes, we want to continue or not continue. one of the biggest ones that would be in the cross hairs would be the paris climate agreement, which president trump has signalled a lot of scepticism of, and it's not unreasonable to suspect he would use this as a mechanism to withdraw from it. the agencies, we don't know. technically, what this is setting up is a panel which will recommend cuts, figuring out where we should cut, but it also makes some suggestions for the one big one is peacekeeping. another one of these suggested cuts, oddly, if the international criminal court, which is strange because the united states doesn't provide funding to that. thank you forjoining us appreciate you. tomorrow, theresa may heads to washington, the first foreign leader to hold meetings with the new us president. the two could not be more different — in temperament, in character, and possibly in their priorities too. our political editor nick watt is here. first what you are hearing on this side of the atlantic about those alterations to the us — un relationship now and funding. there were audible gasps of breath in whitehall and parliament when the report flashed up on the us website. one senior tory said to me, oh my god, it makes putin looked like a pussycat. there is a feeling that were these executive orders to be enacted they could severely undermine the un. my senior tory said the timings of this report my senior tory said the timings of this report is particularly unfortunate for theresa may because as you say she flies to the us in the morning to seek donald trump. the senior tory said to me, "it's a reality check, she needs to calling people who know what they are doing. " there is a feeling theresa may has planned this trip very tightly. i've heard from sources close to cabinet ministers she hasn't really been consulting cabinet colleagues and some voices have been wondering whether it is wise to rush over that quickly. how is she preparing, handling the trip? theresa may hopes when she becomes the first world leader to meet donald trump in the white house within a week of his inauguration she will be laying the ground for a very constructive relationship. she will be talking about renewing the special relationship for this new age and as a sign of that constructive relationship she will be handing donald trump a kick, sorry, a quake, an ancient scottish artefacts — there is on our screen. an ancient scottish cup designed to signalfriendship. she hopes that will lead to a good friendship. some of the language she will dues when she is in the us will take on renewed significance in light of that new york times report. she will essentially make a plea for multilateral organisations, when she lie-159753 e; 5047155; iii-lee, .. . .., and she will talk about deepening defence cooperation through nato. these are perhaps brave words, because obviously donald trump told michael gove in that interview recently that nato was obsolete. although, to be fair to the president, did nato was important to him and appeared to be suggesting it is wrongly configured to tackle terrorism. we thought on the eve of this meeting on thursday between this unlikely pairing of donald trump and theresa may we would find them helpful words of advice for the prime minister. here is ourfilm. it's absolutely vital to stress that britain doesn't want to have to choose between its very special relationship with the united states and its very significant relationship with china. and in that context, the most important and biggest threat to everyone's prosperity is climate change, which cannot be resolved without cooperation and in particular cooperation with china for its also, i think, really important to point out that china understands something which is very important about the economy and the energies and the technologies of the future, which is that they are not based on oil and gas, they are renewable, low—carbon, clean, green and efficient. china understands that. the united states ought to be innovating and competing on that front, not trying to turn the clock back. america's greatness stems from its allies, no country in the history of the world has had more allies or use them to better effect on trump tragically doesn't get that. the most important thing for theresa may to get across is to say that the allies really matter, notjust britain, because trump seems to have clocked that, but european allies. these are countries that believe in american greatness and he can work with them in a way you cannot work with someone like vladimir putin, who doesn't believe in american greatness. my advice would be to represent the best interests of britain, make sure the united kingdom comes first in any negotiations that you're having. he's a very nice guy. he understands the national interests very well. he would never expect you to kowtow to the united states, and nor by the way would anybody around him. i think that's the vibe i'm getting out on the street here, too. having said that, diplomacy is obviously primary and very, very important in these situations. there will be a lot of pressure to say things about what happened during the campaign trail, especially on the back of last 'sprotest. i would still steer clear from it, stick to policy and start forging a relationship of two nations that can lead to the world again. it's a very tricky situation. you're dealing with someone who is a bully and who is very fragile underneath, because most bullies are. you need to be as robust as you can, and not by the romance that he has already proposed, which i think is the way to diminish you. and to find a way to represent yourself as a leader of an important country in the world. two words, trade deal. that's all really she has to worry about. right now he needs to prove to his friends in washington that he is capable of cutting a deal with countries as well as tearing up trade deals. he said he does in my multilateral deals, wants to do one—on—one. along comes britain. we are leaving the eu at exactly the time you need the deal politically as much as we need one economic clue. this is a window of opportunity that might last forever. we don't know a lot how long he will be president for or how long republicans will control congress for, but for these two years, perhaps shorter, there is a chance for theresa may to walk away with the best possible prize after brexit, a free—trade deal with the biggest and most successful economy on earth. be nice, be constructive, but don't pander and try to get him to understand his importance in meeting are these big global challenges and get him to the words nato is good. some advice there. well, nick is still with me. before theresa may heads off this has been a big brexit week. tomorrow we will see the wording of the parliamentary builder makes sure the government complies with the supreme court then make sure its parliament and not government that triggers those brexit negotiations. it is interesting. we will see how tightly worded that dell is and how easy or difficult it we will see how tightly worded that bill is and how easy or difficult it will be for mps and latterly peers to amend that bill. but the government has cleared its commons business next week and they are pretty confident it will complete its common stage by february the 9th, when the house of commons rises for a mini recess and then it over to the house of lords. interestingly we will get that bill after something of a u—turn from theresa may when she announced at prime minister's questions earlier today she would after all publish a white paper, setting out the framework for her negotiations. but the government is saying we will have to wait a little bit of time for that white paper because it is separate from the bill. the bill is about triggering negotiations. the white paper is about the framework for the negotiations. nick, thank you. the hong kong handover will see its 20 year anniversary this year — marking the moment in 1997 when the territory was returned from british to chinese rule. to address the huge fears that hong kong's political and economic freedoms would be undermined by communist china, those liberties were enshrined in law. the so—called joint declaration committed both countries to an understanding that it was one country, two systems. but how much has either country stuck to its promise of protecting hong kong? the umbrella protests two years ago brought a new generation of radical young activists. but no new steps towards real democracy. has britain chosen to prioritize trade over probity? we ask the last governor of hong kong, chris patten. but first, danny vincent reports. there has been racing in hong kong jockey club for almost as long as there's been a hong kong. would continue and dance parties would go on. his promise was kept here, but other promises made 20 years ago no longer seem so durable. the fault lines that brought tens of thousands onto the streets two years ago have now deepened. there are now more radical voices on both sides, and those fighting for the freedoms that set hong kong apart from the rest of china feel increasingly abandoned. unfortunately, the rest of the world, particularly great britain, would rather pretend not to see what is going on, and i'm afraid that, if they continue to ignore the steady erosion, then by the time they wake up to the fact that one country, two systems exists only in name, it will be too late. one country, two systems is the deal agreed between britain and china in 1984. that is the promise, and that is the unshakeable destiny. for many, that promise now feels hollow. now is the time, because hong kong media is facing such difficult challenges. he should know. he was the editor of a newspaper that looked into mainland business, including offshore holdings by the chinese leadership. in 2014, he was attacked on the street by two men with meat cleavers. he was hospitalised for five months and struggles to walk today. the fact that an innocent journalist was brutally attacked by violence is a threat to press freedom in hong kong, because it sends chilling signals to working journalists. press freedom is now at a crossroad. press freedom has been nowhere in the past. i'm not sure whether it will continue in the future. the threat to free speech is made clear in the case of the five book—sellers. they peddled gossipy publications about the beijing leadership. then, in 2015, all five disappeared — only to reappear in chinese detention on the mainland. one, a british citizen, lee bo, may have been kidnapped from within hong kong. another, lam wing—kei, was detained as he crossed the border. translation: i was visiting my girlfriend in the mainland and i was stopped by two officials at the border. they took me to a police van where there were dozens of policemen waiting. then i was taken to the police station in shenzhen, where i was held in the prisoners‘ compound and interrogated. four of the five have been freed. mr lam was released after eight months, on the condition that he handed over a hard disk containing information on their customers, which he says he hasn't done. translation: i believe there are people who are watching me, but that's not my main worry. my main worry is that they will kidnap me and take me back to the mainland. you have the abduction of the four publishers, the exercise of extrajudicial powers on hong kong soil, which makes us all wonder, should we fear the midnight knock at our door? we are no longer even safe in our own beds. we may be in hong kong, we may have broken no hong kong law, but we can still be made to disappear from hong kong soil. anson chan is one of hong kong's most respected leaders. she was chris patten‘s number two and held several of the most senior positions after the handover. she accuses china of attacking the one country, two systems agreement and britain of doing nothing to protect it. you put your signature to the joint declaration and you handed over 7 million people to what is still a totalitarian state, on the basis of those promises. do you think the british government simply isn't brave enough to stand up to china? i think great britain feels that its first and best interest lies in trading with china, and they don't much care whether they trade with china on any terms. a new generation has emerged since the umbrella protest in 2014, caused by beijing's decision to vet the short list for the new chief executive. studentsjoshua wong, thenjust 17, and nathan law, 20, were two of the most prominent leaders. beijing never backed down, but this seems to push more into the democrat camp. the students now lead their own political party, campaigning here about treatment by the police and pushing for greater democracy. they see more trouble ahead. in 2017, i believe there will be more demonstrations and protests, especially under the interference of beijing government. this just proves the failure of one country, two systems. a lot of people after the movement feel frustrated and upset because there was no true democracy in hong kong after the movement, so more or less the goal of the movement failed. maybe we lost a battle, but we will win the war. in elections in september, pro—democrats experienced huge success. nathan law was elected to the legislative council, but pro—beijing forces are trying to use the court to remove him from his seat. this new generation of activists is challenging beijing on many fronts, building a pro—democracy network across east asia. but watch what happened when they returned from a trip to taiwan. a pro—beijing mob attacked nathan as he arrived at hong kong airport. he says intimidation is growing. the communist party is behind all these things. they tried to stigmatise all the democrats and then try to mobilise these patriotic mobs to personally attack each of us. we messaged one of the leaders of the protest on wechat. when we told him we were from the bbc, he ended the conversation. but we did find out that he is the head of a tour guide union that works with visitors from china. and the role of unions, trade associations and executive boards in extending china's influence in hong kong is crucial. many people here have told us that, from transport unions to school boards, the university councils, pro—beijing voices are replacing pro—democrats. it affects the way everyday decisions are made in major and minor levels in hong kong. the infrastructure and economic ties that bind are growing stronger. this is the new bridge that will span the pearl river delta, a 31—mile link to the mainland. and there are many in hong kong who do support closer ties with beijing. holden chow represents the biggest party in the legislative council. i would say you can't simply bring everything to beijing. under that one country, two systems we are running, we do need back—up from the central government, as we have a lot of economic activities and close ties with the mainland. there has always been tension between pro—democrats and pro—beijingers, but is there now a third position? yao wei—ching and baggio leung are separatists, arguing for independence from china. they were excluded from the chamber for using offensive language. this was the response from pro—beijingers when they tried to get back in. the separatists have only limited support so far, but they think they are being watched. all those applications that i can use in this phone has been hacked. they are taking us to a town where they say most are from the mainland. they believe that high levels of immigration are deliberate policy to undermine hong kong's identity. you can see that it is no longer part of hong kong, a hong king environment. this is something like a city in china. it is. i think that most of the hong kongers don't want to see this kind of situation. support for independence is not widely held, but it represents a radical shift in tone, partly because the goals of the umbrella movement have been frustrated. if the one country, two systems cannot protect hong kong people from the control, the next step is to separate from china. in happy valley, they pride themselves on being a unique institution. tonight, over100 million us dollars will be bet, fortunes made and lost. deng xiaoping's dance goes on. but those who fight to keep hong kong free from beijing's control feel increasingly on their own. earlier i spoke to the man you saw in that film, lord patten, the last governor of hong kong. i asked him if he agreed with his former number two there, anson chan, that the world, and britain in particular, were being wilfully blind, ignoring the erosion of human rights by the chinese government. i think the point that anson makes is a very good one. she's one of the most remarkable people i've ever worked with, and i would be very loathe to ever disagree with her. my worry is related to that, which is i wonder what's happened to our sense of honour and our sense of responsibility, particularly in britain, it's above all a british question. we signed the joint declaration with china, it's a treaty at the un, it's supposed to commit us to standing up for hong kong's rights until 2047. you don't get much sense of british governments actually standing over those promises and obligations, and i think that's a great pity, and it's all for derisory, ludicrous reasons. the argument, which is i suspect going to be tested quite a bit in the next few months, the argument that the only way you can do trade with china is by kowtowing to china on political issues is drivel, it's complete nonsense. you once called it the unshakeable destiny of hong kong people to run in hong kong. yes. does it still feel unsha keable to you ? yes, because i think at the end of the day, that is exactly what will happen. i think the values, the attributes which make hong kong special are going to last. i think that communism, whatever that is, leninism with capitalist characteristics, is not a long runner. i think the rule of law, i think freedom of speech, i think freedom of worship, i think all the freedoms you associate with a plural society are long—term winners — notjust in everywhere else in the world, but in asia as well. so is anson chan going too far when she says you put your signature to the joint declaration, you hand over 7 million people to what is still a totalitarian state, on the basis of these promises. the british government isn't being brave enough to stand up? i think the british government would be well advised to prove her wrong, because i think it would be dishonourable not to do so. i worry about that point. i worry about now people are prepared to sell our honour for alleged trade deals, which never actually happen. i think that would be calamitous, and what do we represent in the world, if that's what happens? in what sense would the next generation of leaders in hong kong, who will be, sooner or later, democratically chosen, in what sense would they feel any special relationship to the united kingdom, if that's how we behave? look, i feel very strongly that we let down the parents of this generation of democracy activists. i think it would be a tragedy if we let down these kids as well. what did you mean by that? i meant by the last ten or 15 years of british responsibility in hong kong, i think we should have done more to bed down democracy. we did a certain amount, but i don't think we did enough and i think if hong kong had had another five or ten years‘ experience of democracy it would have been much more difficult for the chinese authorities to have rolled it back, as they have done. we're now almost 20 years since the handover and we're still arguing about whether or not, in effect, beijing should decide who runs hong kong or whether the people of hong kong should decide. we asked the chinese ambassador to come on, but he declined. the british foreign office told us that they believe that one country, two systems continues to be the best arrangement for hong kong's long term stability and prosperity, as it has been for nearly 20 years. "we hope and expect that one country, two systems will be respected and successful long into the future." the holocaust denier david irving rose to prominence as a historian who refused to believe in the concentration camps of auschwitz and the systemic extermination ofjews during the second world war. in 1996, he brought a case against penguin books and the american historian deborah lipstadt — accusing her of libelling him in her book. the case has now been made into a majorfilm — denial — which opens this week in the uk. in a moment we will speak to its scriptwriter david hare, and ask what it tells us about lies, libel and disinformation in this new era. first, a clip of the film showing rachel weisz, who plays deborah lipstadst, the accused writer. some people are saying that the result of this trial will threaten free speech. i don't accept that. i'm not attacking free speech. on the contrary, i've been defending it against someone who wanted to abuse it. freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want. what you can't do is lie and then expect not to be accountable for it. not all opinions are equal, and some things happen, just like we say they do. slavery happened. the black death happened. the earth is round, the ice caps are melting and elvis is not alive. just before coming on air i spoke to david hare. i asked him whether that clip was at the crux of what the film was trying to say. well that was the reason that i wanted to write the film, really, because there's a sort of view at the moment that everybody‘s opinion is equal. as if it's an argument to be able to say, "well that's my opinion". and so you say something and then somebody says something else and obviously this has been encouraged by the internet, this idea that you can just assert things and it is a false kind of democracy to say that everybody‘s opinions are equal. not everybody‘s opinions are equal. those opinions that are backed up by fact and provable fact are superior to the opinions of those that are not backed up by fact. that's really what i wanted to write about. that trial at the time pretty much killed irving's reputation, from what i remember, he was never taken seriously again. but i wonder if you think, in this age, he would still thrive, that we have become more accepting of untruth? personally, i don't think the internet is significantly changing things. i think that at the time, he walked into a trap. in other words, he thought that... you know, it was his idea to bring the lawsuit. it was always felt, people kept accidentally calling deborah lipstadst the prosecution, but she wasn't the prosecution, she was the defendant. he chose to take it to court, and he did that thinking that his deliberate mis—manipulation of the truth would not be revealed in court, but by a rather wonderful process, thanks to anthonyjulius, the solicitor, and richard rampton, the brilliant counsel, they actually proved notjust that he was lying but they also managed to prove his motivation for lying. this was in the 90s, in a pre—twitter age. i think it was hugo rifkind who wrote this week, "truth is a matter of clicks. when we stop concentrating, this is when we understand the world. if enough people behold a thing it becomes true." do you sense that is what we are entering now? you know, i'm a little bit resistant to all this. in other words, you know, people are saying that donald trump is a liar, and clearly he is a liar. he says things that are not true. but there have been a whole series of american presidents who have said things that were not true. nixon wasn't overly fond of the truth. reagan claimed to know nothing about iran—contra, he claimed not to know america was financing terrorism in central america. bill clinton was a liar, as well. you know, lying in politics is not a new things. the majority of presidents, let's say, have told a lie in office. is there a difference, though, if the media, if broadcasters know at the time that something is a lie, should they strive for balance or should they call it out as a lie? i think they have to call it out as a lie. look, what was unusual about irving was that he claimed that the mistakes he had made in the book hitler's war, and historians working for the defence found 25 mistakes of fact in the book, but they all tended one way. in other words, and what richard rampton was able to do, was to prove that there was a motivation for the mistakes in the book. you know, some historians got upset and said no book can survive this kind of scrutiny. the answer of the defence was — no, no, no, all historians make mistakes, but if all their mistakes head in one direction, and that direction is the exoneration of adolf hitler for the death of the jews, then you have to say that they aren't mistakes, they are deliberate distortions. and that's what was so brilliant about a trial. in getting back to the film and the way that portrays the trial, it's very much that passion versus, if you like, rationality. american versus british, you have these rather buttoned up british lawyers and the american academic, who wants to do it with her heart and they want to do it with logic. was that pretty much how the trial itself was, or is that something you wanted to bring into the script? deborah lipstadst was forced not to give evidence. not only was she not allowed to give evidence by her own defence team, but also the survivors of the camps were not allowed to give evidence. i think i have a line where richard rampton says, "what feels best, isn't what works best". and so films about the difference between self—righteous feeling and strategy. and would you take that into the political sphere now? oh yes. clearly hillary clinton lost against donald trump because she has no strategy for dealing with him. david hare, thank you. that's it for tonigfht. we leave you with the work of the bad lip reading youtube channel, who watched the inauguration on some pretty strong drugs. goodnight. i'm important. you want to be me, don't you? quite a figure, a figure. it looks like we have a problem. yeah, leave it to me. we're going to squeeze him. hard duke, eddie. hard duke into your face. ha—ruh—buh—buh—buh! together we will build a bar in rural connecticut, and we will make it a bar with a nanny, and we will make it a bar called brown lady, and we will make it a bar that has stuff in it and extra good leather. # when you want to make a bad day a greater day # then come to brown lady #. now let's party. was going to say the weather a little less obscure but not sure. less fog around, still some frost but a bitterly cold wind from the south—east. that is really going to make it look quite raw out there. the early—morning frost, the end of cloud, a spot or two of drizzle. a damp and a great start to the day. you'll thermometer might say 1— to five degrees but when you factor in the strength of the wind it we'll feel quite cold. on friday, weather fronts pushing in from the south—west slowly. a cold frosty start from sheltered areas in the south—west. temperatures are sitting around 9— 10 degrees. still colder in the fire north and east. donald trump signs an order to build the wall. kim jong—un‘s grip on kimjong—un‘s grip on power won't last for ever. i'm kasia madera in london. a backlash against australia day. we will tell you why. it's been called the vanuatu romeo and juliet. will talk to the directors of the oscar nominated film tana. —— we'll talk to. live from our studios in london and singapore. you're watching bbc news world news. it's newsday.