Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in a piece where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to ensuring supporters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition violated global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an appearance 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 breach of international law, Thornberry 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 government member, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want 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 speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. 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 due to make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
