Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight government efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited measures including plans to cut utility costs. However, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and caution by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition violated international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (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.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, 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.
[Starmer] may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before everyone and say I cannot 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 Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby 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 the ongoing situation.
