Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' actions to reduce the cost of living. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced steps including plans to cut utility costs. However, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and restraint by all actors, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition violated global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well want to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
