Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government efforts to bring down the cost of living. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters get access to cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on embracing the American method – which is likely good news for Norway.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and caution by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition broke global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
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 action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking 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.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are gearing up 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: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
