Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight government actions to bring down the cost of living. He set out this argument recently in an article where he cited steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. However, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing supporters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life appears very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and caution by all parties, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend 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 declining to say the Maduro extradition violated international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried 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.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
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 mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
