Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on government actions to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this argument recently in an article where he cited measures including proposals to cut utility costs. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on adopting the American method – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, 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 international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish 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 proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
