Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight government actions to bring down the cost of living. He set out this argument yesterday in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to ensuring supporters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on embracing the American method – which is likely a positive development 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, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was doing 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:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
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 weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of us and say I literally 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 Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime 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 scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
