Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case recently in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to cut energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing supporters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition broke international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she 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 minister, she said. She added:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the reasoning 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 agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments 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 anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
