Good morning. Before Christmas, 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 set out this case recently in an article where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. However, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on embracing the American method – which is probably good news 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 the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition violated international law 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 undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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 sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well want to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone 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 speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead 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: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
