Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case yesterday in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring supporters get access to cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite Nicolás Maduro, 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 censure the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (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 area of control.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are gearing up 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: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
