Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. However, his cost of living media push has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably good news for other nations.
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 install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and restraint by all actors, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. 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 doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition broke international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining 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 China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well want to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister 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 anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
