Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on government actions to bring down the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing his voters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen on embracing the American method – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and caution by all actors, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round 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 replied:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out 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 recently, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried 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.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. 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: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead 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 Venezuela.
