Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' actions to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this case yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on embracing the American method – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition broke international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining 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 the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation 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 want to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
