Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government actions to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in an article where he cited measures including proposals to cut energy bills. However, his cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on adopting 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 willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed 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 global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU recalls 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 special duty to defend those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was doing 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 worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the steps that they’ve undertaken. 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 the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, 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 added:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the justification 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 agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street 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 the ongoing situation.
