Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to bring down the living expenses. He set out this argument recently in an article where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. However, his cost of living media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring supporters get access to cheap energy.
No one in British political life seems particularly eager on adopting 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 willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the US action, 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 overtly critical, did stress the value of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and caution by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition violated global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, 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 the Chinese president, 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, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. 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 escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. 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: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press 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.
