Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to bring down the living expenses. He set out this case recently in a piece where he cited measures including proposals to cut energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct approach to ensuring supporters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely good news for Norway.
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 install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge calm and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, 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 standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition violated global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- 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 area of control.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, 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.
[Starmer] may well want to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour 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: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
