Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' efforts to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in an article where he cited steps including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct approach to ensuring supporters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen on embracing 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 the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
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 one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition broke global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at 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 deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well want to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due 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: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
