Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight government actions to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. However, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing supporters get access to cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused 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 except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening 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 UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- 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 area of control.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. 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 an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
