Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight government efforts to bring down the living expenses. He set out this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to ensuring his voters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is likely 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 abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, 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 uphold those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition broke global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But last night, 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 China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry 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 minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. 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 Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled 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 anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
