Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight government actions to bring down the cost of living. He set out this case yesterday in an article where he cited steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring supporters receive affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on adopting the American method – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, especially 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 legal. Recently, European Union members except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition violated global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But last night, 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.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she 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 escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
