Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight government efforts 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. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing his voters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on embracing the American method – which is likely a positive development 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 install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge calm and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition violated global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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.
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 balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of 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 opposition leader, and Scottish Tory 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 visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the media.
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 update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
