Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government actions to bring down the living expenses. He set out this argument recently in an article where he cited measures including plans to cut energy bills. However, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to ensuring his voters receive cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on adopting the American method – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and caution by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition broke international law because he was afraid of upsetting 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 legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried 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 area of control.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation 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.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda 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 gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
