Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on government actions to reduce the cost of living. He set out this argument recently in a piece where he cited measures including plans to cut energy bills. However, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU recalls 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 special duty to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition broke global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, 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 China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want 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 valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, 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 make comments to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
