Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' efforts to bring down the cost of living. He set out this case recently in an article where he referenced steps including proposals to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring supporters get access to affordable power.
No one in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is likely a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and caution by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets 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 standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition broke global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the juridical dimension 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 separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit 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: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
