Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' efforts to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic media push has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct approach to ensuring supporters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister 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 collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge calm and caution by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. 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 conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition broke international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, 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 added:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
