Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to bring down the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in an article where he cited measures including plans to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing 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 regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, 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 upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the legal aspect 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 the Russian leader and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before us and say I cannot 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 opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
