Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' efforts to bring down the cost of living. He set out this argument yesterday in an article where he cited steps including plans to reduce energy bills. However, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to ensuring his voters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and caution by all parties, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, 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 standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing 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 upsetting Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried 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 refusing to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer 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 queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
