Good morning. Prior to the holidays, 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 set out this case recently in a piece where he cited measures including plans to reduce energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring his voters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life seems particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely 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 abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states except one nation issued a joint statement 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 urge calm and caution by all parties, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition broke international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, 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.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, 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 minister, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the reasoning 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 agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections 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 lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
