Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight government actions to bring down the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to cut utility costs. However, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing his voters get access to cheap energy.
No one in British political life seems very keen on adopting the American method – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles 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.
Mike Tapp, was doing 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:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. 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 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 former 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 violation of international law, Thornberry 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 went on:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
