Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight government efforts to reduce the cost of living. He set out this case recently in a piece where he cited steps including plans to reduce utility costs. However, his economic PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring supporters receive affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on adopting the American method – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition violated international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
