The stories behind the day's headlines with Evan Davis. Is there method to Trump's foreign diplomacy, or madness? Plus the Brexit white paper and Viewsnight.
Browse content similar to 02/02/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
We knew he'd annoyed the Chinese over Taiwan.
And then the Australian prime minister, not
Is there method in the President's apparent madness?
He's famously a deal maker, and likes to get his way.
But the President is not a happy deal taker.
He's not keen on the commitments of his predecessors,
particularly one to take refugees from Australia.
When you sure about the tough phone calls I am having, don't worry about
it. Just don't worry. They are tough, we have to be tough, it's
time to be a little tough folks, we are taken advantage of by every
nation in the world, virtually. It's not going to happen any more.
We'll ask the President's recent adviser on climate
Also tonight, our official policy on Brexit now runs to 75
Britain wants to free itself from much of the EU Customs Union to
allow it to negotiate new free trade deals across the globe.
But it does want to hold on to one benefit,
tariff-free trade with the rest of the EU.
Italy's deputy foreign minister will tell us why
And on Viewsnight, Pankaj Mishra explains why we live
For the last two tumultuous centuries we've been designed to
pursue ideals designed for the benefit of a homogenous few.
Billions of people are now chasing these ideals with ever increasing
frustration. Another day, one in
which the unconventions of the new US diplomacy have
been in evidence. Item one - the President seems
to have had an argument with the Australian prime minister,
and curtailed a phone Two - the National Security
Advisor Michael Flynn has put Iran on notice,
although no specification And three - it emerged that some
days ago, Donald Trump had suggested that he might send US troops
into Mexico, telling the Mexican President that he needed
to deal with the "bad But at the same time, this evening
in the UN, the Americans have strongly condemned
the Russians' actions in Ukraine, and sounded very
like they traditionally have. We do want to better our relations
with Russia, however the dire situation in eastern Ukraine is one
that demands clear and strong condemnation of Russian actions. The
United States continues to condemn and call for an immediate end to the
Russian occupation of Crimea. Crimea is a part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-
related sanctions will stay in place until Russia returns control over
the peninsula to Ukraine. There is a clear path to restoring peace in
eastern Ukraine. A full and immediate implementation of the
agreements which the United States continues to support. The UN
ambassador to the United Nations, -- the US ambassador, sounding just as
an ambassador traditionally does. Now, it's confusing -
to Mr Trump's opponents, I suspect that for his supporters,
there is craft in the chaos - the new President is unpredictable
and going to have Here's our diplomatic
editor, Mark Urban. The national prayer breakfast is a
Washington institution. A chance for politicians, movers and Shakers to
commune with the Almighty. A chance also for President Trump to exhort
them to keep the faith. When you hear about the tough phone calls I'm
having, don't worry about it. Just don't worry. They are tough, we have
to be tough, it's time we have to be a little tough, folks, we are taken
advantage of by every nation in the world, virtually. It is not going to
happen any more. Tough calls. Like the one to Australia's Prime
Minister at the weekend. They later tweet suggested the Australians
needed to be pressured over a deal to resettle refugees. So is the
Twitter bully pulpit part of irrational strategy? In the old days
the old international regime was very careful about any tweet that
would degenerate into tensions. Now the entire planet is on Twitter and
Facebook and social media, I think it is a good thing for the president
of the United States to also be on social media. But if this is the new
liturgy of Washington what to make the sentence that could undermine
the message? Yesterday at National Security adviser Michael Flynn gave
around this warning. Trump has criticised the agreements reached
between Iran and the Obama administration and the United
Nations as being weak and ineffective. Instead of being
thankful to the US, Iran is feeling emboldened. As of today we are
officially putting Iran on notice, thank you. Yet Pentagon people
undermined that almost as soon as it went out, saying there was no change
to their posture with regard to Iran. It is very hard for outsiders
to read. With respect to Iran or North Korea, these are countries
where honour matters a lot. And humiliating the leadership of
countries like this in order to show that you have won a better deal is
also a very good way to escalate into quite a dangerous tensions.
Another feature of the Trump approach seen with Pacific trade or
the EU is to emphasise the bilateral state to state approach rather than
dealing with them in a group in the hub of leveraging America's
strength. He's not going to dismantle historic alliance is
coming is trying to reform them, and to do so, his method is to sit down
with each one of these countries that form these alliances, see what
the bilateral situation is between the two countries is on a variety of
levels and then talk about the forthcoming reform of these
alliances. There's been a great deal of disquiet within the State
Department and some people have leaked there as well. Today, Rex
Tillerson taking up his position as Secretary of State put the emphasis
on pulling together. Each of us is entitled to the expression of our
political beliefs. But we cannot allow our personal convictions to
impede our working as a team. Let's be honest with each other about the
times we living as we focus our images on our departmental goals.
Those in earnest supplication for a more doctrine from people like Rex
Tillerson may be deluding themselves. In Midas we have a
career military officer who's been trained up in the art of executing,
right. Someone who has lived his life in the military is not a very
familiar with how to counter orders coming down from above. We had
tremendous success on the Apprentice. Contradicting any
attempt to separate policy, Trump 's remarks. And they hired a big movie
star, and to take my place and we know how that turned out. At the
prayer breakfast this morning he took a swipe at Arnold
Schwarzenegger and his ratings on On The Apprentice. From this
administration we have already learned to expect the unexpected.
Let's just pray for Arnold and those ratings.
Well, the new diplomacy is unpredictable, but it is also
very much about the US taking on global affairs,
President Trump is not keen on the big international bodies
The US prefers bilaterals to multilaterals now.
One area where the existing global arrangements are being reviewed
President Trump wants to exit the Paris Agreement.
So who better to speak to about his approach
to international affairs and climate change than Myron Ebell,
who was in the transition team, in an environment role?
Thank you for joining us. Good to talk to you. There is a huge weight
in trying to understand the rules of the game under President Trump. In
your view, what looks like chaos, is that strategic, planned, or just
ordinary chaos? It seems to me that President Trump is trying to get an
awful lot done very quickly, so I think the chaos is the result of
that but I think he is moving rapidly on some major issues. What
do you think of that line, we will talk about climate change but the
line he used about "Every country in the world is taking advantage of the
United States"? Do you agree? Clearly the US is one of the richest
countries in the world so you might not think it was the most obvious
feature. Do you accept that every country virtually is taking
advantage of the US? I think President Trump is sometimes prone
to speak broadly. We would have to go through each iteration of that
although there have been long-term problems with Nato for example, most
countries are not keeping their commitments for defence spending. So
there are examples with the US is more than baring its own fair share,
I suppose. -- where it is baring its own fair share. The multilateral,
bilateral think he doesn't like multilateral deals, he is fine with
bilateral deals, could you articulate for us what is wrong with
multilateral and what is better about bilateral? I think we would
have to again look at this on a case-by-case basis. I think the
world trade organisation, the problem with it was that it hasn't
been able to finish any of the big agreements on services for now well
over a decade, more like 15 years. The multilateral process has sort of
come to aid... It has frozen up. So maybe the bilateral deals will be
more successful then. Let's move to another important multilateral area,
climate change, international agreements. You are not a fan. You
are in the transition team as the transitional head of the
Environmental Protection Agency. Do you think President Trump will pull
the United States at the Paris agreement and basically say, guys we
are no longer in it? -- pull them out of the agreement? President
Trump said in the campaign in several speeches, not in
off-the-cuff remarks that he intended to withdraw the United
States from the Paris agreement and D fund the programmes. The principal
expenditure is the huge $100 billion a year green climate fund expected
to go into effect in 2020. The share that the US places $3 billion. He's
not alone in this. The Congress will never appropriate that money. So it
seems that this is going to happen. Most of the rest of the world has a
different view about the appropriate action to take on climate change,
different to that of the US. Is the rest of the world entitled to sake
you can put America first and do what you want, we will stick to
Paris and put a small tariff on American exports because they are
not burdened by the climate change taxes that we are all baring. I
think the rest of the world can't talk about that but it should be
recognised that the United States, because of the Shell oil and gas
revolution, has done more to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions than
any other country. Right. If the US, I supposed what I am really getting
at here, is, the US is adopting a policy on, we are not going to take
it any more. What happens if the rest of the world says OK, we will
not take it any more as well because everyone else feels a bit hard done
by and as if everyone is ripping them off. If that's dynamic plays
out, where do you, a free-market libertarian type, where do you think
that ends for the world and president Trump and for all his
ambition? My underlying belief is that the United States, by
withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement and removing funding from
environmental programmes will be turning the world back in the right
direction. Another part of the President Trump agenda is to make
the United States is the largest energy producer in the world, which
will free Europe from the threats from Russian gas and also reduce the
influence of Opec. Yes. When do you expect President Trump to make an
announcement on Paris and how he is progressing on that? Every time I
say something I get misquoted. And it could happen at any time, it
could happen tomorrow, or one month from now or later this spring. I
don't think it's going to take forever, I have no idea when it
might happen. I want to ask you because you have worked for a
free-market think tank, you must disagree with the approach that the
president is taking to trade. You don't believe in slapping a 20% tax
on the border for Mexican goods, do you? Do you not believe that we have
all been enhanced by free trade, are am not completely outdoors with the
man you are serving in that transition team? The Institute is
proudly and relentlessly free trade. That is why I was not asked to work
on his trade policy. Are you going to be asked to get a permanent job
in the administration? No. I agreed to work on the transition as a
volunteer for four and a half months on condition I did not want a job in
the federal government. Myron Ebell, thank you. Thank you.
The government's Brexit White Paper came out today, adding more detail
Actually, the White Paper had a few mistakes and typos,
and if you look at the metadata on the electronic version,
as the BBC's George Greenwood did, it appears to have been finished
Just right-click on the pdf in Adobe, and look for
A late draft is normal, but it suggests that a lot
The document raises multiple issues, from civil nuclear regulation
to data protection, just to say they'll be resolved
Other specifics, such as the Erasmus higher education exchange programme
or the pet passport scheme get no mention.
Yes, the future travel status of millions of dogs
Now this White Paper is just the British view -
we may get our way, or we may be about to be hit by a
Our political editor Nick Watt is with me.
Nick, the Prime Minister will be heading to an EU gathering tomorrow.
Tomorrow, Theresa May will attend what may well be one of the last
European Council meetings before C trick is the Article 50 Brexit
negotiations. She wants to do that early next month. -- before she
triggers. That will take place in the Maltese capital of the letter
and the main focus will be on the Mediterranean migration crisis.
Theresa May will use that issue and that summit to tell the remainder of
the EU that the UK wants to be a reliable partner when we have left
and when Brexit has taken place. To will say that the UK will like to
continue to tribute to the EU task force in the Mediterranean. She will
cite naval aspects on border a cut is taking place. As the Brexit
negotiations approach, there is a growing feeling in the Cabinet that
the UK is facing a daunting task of historic proportions. So the key
thing that the UK has got to do, is it has to show it will not be a
supplicant in the talks. How do you do that? You start to play some of
your key cards. We will help in a migration crisis. An interesting
chapter in the White Paper, chapter 11, talking about how the UK plays a
pivotal role in helping other EU countries tackle terrorism. I spoke
to one member of the Cabinet who said, we are not saying we will
withdraw cooperation on terrorism if the talks don't go our way, but it's
probably a good idea to provide a reminder of the UK's significant
role on that front. So on the day of the publication of that White Paper,
we thought we would take a look at some of the main challenges that
will face the UK in those Brexit negotiations.
Well, it's 75 pages long and it provides the most detailed
explanation of the government's approach to the Brexit negotiations,
but there's not a single word about the first item on the EU
The multi-billion pound divorce settlement the UK
Instead, there is one short paragraph about
and they are a long way down the line.
Item number two on the EU list will be a demand for the UK
to guarantee the rights of the 2.8 million EU
Theresa May is holding back on this one because she wants to secure
reciprocal rights for the 1 million Brits living in the rest of the EU.
This issue could be resolved next week if an alliance of Tory
backbenchers working quietly with senior Cabinet
ministers manages to force the Prime Minister's hand.
Theresa May wants to reach agreement on the UK's future partnership
with the EU during the two-year Brexit talks, but the EU is only
obliged to take account of the final settlement at this stage,
prompting the UK to accept the need for an implementation period.
The White Paper is silent on the EU's view on this period.
Theresa May's decision to leave the single market means the UK
will no longer be able to rely on so-called passporting rights
to sell financial services across the EU.
So the White Paper doesn't really talk about rules in this area.
Instead, it has a very simple message for the rest of the EU.
75% of your capital market business is conducted through the UK.
Do you really want to put barriers in the way of that?
Britain wants to free itself from much of the EU Customs Union
to allow it to negotiate new free trade deals across the globe.
But it does want to hold onto one benefit, tariff free trade
Once again, the White Paper doesn't really talk about rules.
Instead, it makes a simple plea to the EU.
Surely you want to have a close relationship with one of the world's
Joining me now to discuss this is the Italian Deputy Foreign
Thank you for talking to us. When you sit down as the 27, without us,
what do you talk about, what is the mood in the room, what do you think?
Do they say it will be easy or difficult? Will we be a pushover? I
think it's a daunting task. For both. Of course, it's a divorce.
Divorce is always painful. And it's a failure. We are all responsible.
And we have to act quickly and with fairness. Quickly also, because I
know it's very complicated and we don't know exactly how to handle it.
It's the first time. There is the example of Greenland,, but years and
years ago, that was a little thing. The UK is a big thing. I say that we
need to be quick because the financial markets left us no time.
It's in everybody's interest that it is quick and smooth. You've had a
quick glance at the White Paper. You heard Theresa May's speech and you
know the British position. What do you think is not going to be
deliverable, or will it all be deliverable? Everything is
negotiable and deliverable. Everything. On one side, the White
Paper is a wish list. How to handle it, the main thing is what we want.
What the UK wants in this negotiation. But on the other side,
the tone of the White Paper is a good one. In general, there is no
supplicants in this story. Of course, it's a failure, we have to
divide, but we have to be fair. The White Paper says, more or less, what
are the best results for both? Pushing you want to specifics, what
do you think will be the hardest of the issues you have seen laid out,
the customs union? The rights of residents in different countries?
What's the hardest issue? Probably the commercial things. Commercial
things, because trade in general. Because the common market is very
important for us. It's the building block of the EU. We need to speak a
lot about that. It's very complicated. And also the idea to
have on one side, bilateral trade agreements, it's a long job. It's a
long story, you know? To do that. On the other side, the UK... We cannot
accept that the UK will become a tax haven near to Europe. That's the
back-up option. The Brits have said they don't want to do that, but
that's what they would do if it was a bad deal. The British position is
that when we all sit down together, you guys are bluffing. You will say
this and that is difficult, but most of what we want is trade, you all
want trade, we all benefit from trade, so you are bluffing and will
give us what we want. Or as Boris Johnson will put it, it's all about
Rossetto. You want to sell Prosser go and you will push it in the end.
-- prosecco. There is a time question. Everybody wants a free
market, of course. All the trade facilities. And of course it's in
the ideals of everybody. On the other side, we worked a lot for the
key is to have this common market. And to have another system in
globalisation. Also, globalisation is weak now, but will not end, so to
have plenty of bilateral agreements. You were speaking about multilateral
and bilateral about the United States before. This is not
multilateral. It is more than that, it is one common market. You cannot
oppose that with dozens of bilateral agreements. First of all, to achieve
this goal, you need time. Then we have to find something new, we have
to be creative on this. A quick last one. One of the things the British
have too offered the rest of the EU, we share security cooperation,
advice on terrorism. And we also have a navy helping out in the
Mediterranean in terms of the migrant crisis. Are those things,
things that you hope are not part of the bargain or the negotiation, or
do you think Britain will be rewarded, if you like, for offering
those in keeping cooperation going on those? Look, I cannot imagine a
Europe... And I don't say EU, I say Europe, without the UK, of course.
And the main subject is defence. There is not any kind of European
defence without the United Kingdom. That means defence, anti-terrorism,
security, intelligence. On this field, and also in the other field
of research, we need to be very cooperative among us. Mario Giro I
thank you for talking to us. At one point he was the front
runner, but Francois Fillon can now see his bid
for the French presidency imploding. to pay her as a member of staff
for many years, but the Telegraph unearthed a bit of a video interview
they did with her some years back, when she said she
didn't work for him. I've never been actually his
assistant or anything like that. No, I don't deal
with his communication. For many French voters,
that video is the proof that the Fillons' intra-family
payments were a rip-off Let's talk about the ramifications
of this with two people keenly Pierre Haski, from the French news
site Rue 89, is in Paris. Do you think Fillon's bid for the
presidency is over? My feeling is that it's over. He's trying to
resist. But he's an embattled candidate. He's trying to fight back
but his credibility in shatters. Do you agree that it's over for Fillon?
Yes, he's probably toast. Let's remember the allegations and also
point out that it's not illegal, on the contrary, it's totally legal to
employ a member of your family to be a parliamentary assistant. What is
illegal is to get the taxpayer to pay for it. And for the member of
the family not to do the work. What is worse is that we should remember
that there is a history of doing good investigative work. The people
who expose this particular story. It wasn't just this, there have been a
sequence, a drip, drip, drip. She was getting paid by a billionaire's
literary publication. That's right. And the staff had never seen her.
Police raided Parliament the other day. This is not a surprise to
French people that Mrs Fillon. It kicked off nine days ago. She has
always been very reluctant and says she's a wife first and a mother to
their children and is there to support her husband. That's never
been a problem. What has surprised and stunned everybody, not just in
their own party but across France is to discover that she had a full-time
job as a parliamentary assistant and was then paid very handsomely and
even by Francois Fillon's replacement. This is stunning, very
bad news for him, bad news for the French conservatives, who don't have
a alternative. It's very bad news for them. We have lost the line to
Paris. Take us through what's happened. The way they have been
doing it, appointing eight candidate through primaries like the United
States. That is relatively new in France. What happens if you lose the
candidate between the primary and the presidential election?
That is the big question, there are a few scenarios. The most improbable
is to go through the process again. Number one, it would be denying,
this would be the second time for the Socialists, let's remember also,
Juppe, he was another... We are in unpredictable territory, he beat him
easily and beat Nicolas Sarkozy, so there are people, who, if the
process is not respected, are discovering that their candidate who
they thought would be the next French president in that second
round on May seven is completely embattled. We have to say that the
allegations are one thing but the way he has mishandled it, he said it
was misogyny, he accused the media of being totally unfair, says it is
a coup by the left, and institutional coup. He's making all
kinds of accusations. I want to Bush, who will benefit, you could
say it is Marine Le Pen, will say that the establishment are all in it
for themselves and they must choose an anti-establishment candidate, or
is it the bright younger guy coming through now, who picks up the votes?
I think they will both pick up some. Notice how silent Marine Le Pen is
being on this. She has her own problems. She had until January 31
to repay to the European Parliament 300,000 euros, she did not do so.
The accusation stands that she abused European funds, she abused
them for her assistance in France and not Brussels. We find out more
about Mr Macron. I've just found out that he's coming to London, we've
got to get that in there, he's coming on February 21. It will be
fascinating to see. Not elected, ex-banker but he is connecting,
resonating. So all bets are off, if you want to place bets, do so. It is
a serious business, we don't know who will be the next president.
That's politics. I am sorry that we lost here.
Our regular - or irregular - spot for ideas and views.
Tonight, it's Pankaj Mishra, essayist, writer and author
of the recent book, the Age of Anger,
Blame modernity for our Age of Anger.
Why do racism and misogyny flourish on social media?
What is the appeal of lying demagogues?
Since 9/11 we have blamed the Other, mostly Muslims,
for political disorder, but the enemy now is more intimate,
as we can see in the rise of Trump and the far right across Europe.
The modern world's cherished ideals of liberty, equality and prosperity
The problem is that it is difficult for the vast majority of the human
These ideals were formulated by a tiny minority of ambitious
Slave owners in America and networked intellectuals in Europe.
Their projects of self-empowerment were never meant for the masses,
Since 1789, many peoples who were deliberately excluded,
whether women, enslaved or colonised peoples, or the working classes,
have struggled for liberty and equality through either
In recent decades, we have stopped talking about revolution
We have transferred our expectations to the markets.
We hoped that global capitalism would create general prosperity
Instead, as more and more people around the world have sought wealth,
at increasing costs to the environment, we have seen
The result is a toxic politics of resentment
This militant disaffection incited by unequal societies is nothing new.
For the last two tumultuous centuries we have been encouraged
to pursue ideals that were designed for the benefit of a homogenous few.
Billions of people are now chasing a very fragile illusion with ever
To understand our Age of Anger, we must not only look
at the symptoms, such as Isis, economic disparity, or the far
right, but also at the root cause, the ideals that underpin modernity.
Only then can we make the ideals of liberty and equality
work for our diverse and environmentally
You are quite down on the way the world has been running itself. You
would not think, listening to your Viewsnight that over the last two
decades 1 billion people have been taken out of acute poverty in the
world, has it been that bad? They have been taken out of poverty but
have you thought about where they will go next? What will happen,
these are just 1 billion people taken out of poverty, there are more
people waiting. Another billion waiting... And they have been
promised that they will share in the prosperity that has been created by
a global capitalist economy worldwide, and we know that they
will not attain that particular utopia. The world, the planet itself
does not have the resources to cater to that kind of fantasy. Is it that
the planet itself is limited? It's not just at the environmental level,
it's also political, we are seeing the politically toxic consequences
of feeding people forced promises. Something which, this kind of
discourse, that billions of people are being lifted out of... Progress
is happening, irreversible, inevitable, this discourse which the
media has been disseminating since the end of the Cold War is very much
complicit in this. You go back to 1789 anti-work right critical of the
Enlightenment -- and you were quite critical of the way people had come
allies to themselves, it trickled down quite a bit, didn't it, to the
societies, where, not the whole world... But you look at where
people were between say, year zero and the industrial revolution, they
were checking along on two or $3 a day on average, and now we are all
just sitting around, basically, the poverty line in the United States is
$63 a day for a family of four. Let's call that a $16 a day per
person. Incomparably better than 200 years ago. Yes, but the problem is,
this is where we are all going wrong when you are computing, talking
about such massive changes, talking about people being lifted out of
poverty, what you are failing to consider is that people, making
these massive changes in their lives, they are also experiencing
loss, disillusionment, frustration. This is what the book is partly
about, these ideas that we have lived with, I am not saying they are
not admirable or worthy of pursuit, I am saying that they have caused
terrible disillusionment and disaffection for a long time and
many times that disaffection has become politically toxic... I do
see, one reason that there might be some edge disillusionment in the
world is that technology have shown people what they are missing in a
way that it did not. They are much better off but they know how much
worse off they were. This is the paradox. When things improve,
people's expectations go through the roof. Why say it is about white men,
the system they invented works in China... A statement is too often
ignored, Barack Obama ignored it, saying that protesting African
Americans are demanding the equality promised to them by the founding
fathers. This is not history, this is fantasy. First we must
acknowledge that these ideas were created by a small group of
self-serving people who wanted liberty from certain specific
authorities of their time. They were not thinking of liberty for
everyone. They were not even thinking about who was human and who
was not. And they extended their realm... Who is they? The people you
are talking about. People fought for those liberties. They were not given
to them. Segregation existed until the late 20th century. What is your
counter hypothesis? What is the system you would like to see? A
system that is environmentally sustainable. An economy, basically,
this is why I say, you have to think about our place in the world and the
transformation of the world. The system has been demonstrably better.
We are in the middle of a lot of at least in the West. We are now in the
modern world, there is no way back, that is for sure. Capitalist western
democracy, is that the best system, basically? Have we tried other
systems? From time to time, and they have done pretty badly. What we are
dealing with is modern economics, what we are witnessing, is people
thinking that one system works for the entire world. And we know that
the one size fits all solution is light in tatters today. Pankaj,
thank you very much. And we'll be continuing our
discussion with Pankaj Mishra on Facebook right after
we come off air. That's on the BBC
Newsnight Facebook page. You can see that on the screen. We
are going to go and do that. We leave you with that
Trump-Schwarzenegger feud you may have heard about earlier
in the programme. Both men have had something to say
in the last 24 hours. See if you can spot which one works
on Celebrity Apprentice and which one is the President
of the United States. ...Had tremendous success
on The Apprentice. I know the American people are not
people that sit just in front of the television set
and always complain... And they hired a big,
big movie star, Arnold Because they know democracy
is not a spectator sport. If you don't like
something, you get up. The ratings went
right down the tubes. And you go and do
something about it. I think the American people
are going to get up. And I want to just
pray for Arnold, if we And that I think is the bottom line,
this is why I think we Still a very windy end to the
evening but as we head to Friday and more windy and wet weather to come,
the potential for more disruption because of the strength of the wind,
and the rain looks persistent and may
In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Evan Davis. Is there method to Trump's foreign diplomacy, or madness? Plus the Brexit white paper, the implosion of the French presidential front-runner, and Viewsnight - why is the world so angry?