Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight government efforts to bring down the cost of living. He set out this argument recently in an article where he cited steps including proposals to cut energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing supporters get access to cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances 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 conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the juridical dimension 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 the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. 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 wish to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
