Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight government efforts to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case recently in a piece where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. However, his cost of living media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is likely good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way 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 compliant with American interests, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge calm and caution by all parties, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was conducting an series of media appearances 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 US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an appearance 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 China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech 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: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office 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 update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
