Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader 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 recently in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. However, his economic PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters get access to affordable power.
No one in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is likely a positive development for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for calm and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles 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 pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting 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 worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, 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 China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. 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 not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak 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.
