Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, his economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters get access to affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge calm and restraint by all actors, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition broke global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an appearance 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 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 office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
