Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' efforts to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this argument recently in a piece where he cited steps including plans to reduce energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely good news for Norway.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer 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, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and caution by all parties, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
The migration minister, 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:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain 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 former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, 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 added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office 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.
