Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' actions to bring down the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he cited measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines 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 American method – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is an intense debate ongoing 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 regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round 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 replied:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader 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 international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to 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 schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.