Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this argument recently in an article where he cited measures including proposals to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring supporters receive affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely good news 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 the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding 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 EU recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, 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 declining to say the Maduro extradition broke global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, 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 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, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before us 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 Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.
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.
