Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to reduce the cost of living. He set out this case yesterday in an article where he cited measures including plans to reduce energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic media push has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to ensuring his voters get access to cheap energy.
No one in British political life appears very keen on embracing the American method – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend 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 refusing to say the Maduro extradition violated international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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 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 weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone 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 Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
