Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' efforts to bring down the living expenses. He set out this argument yesterday in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring his voters get access to affordable power.
No one in British political life seems particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and caution by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition broke global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.
But last night, 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 the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone 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 Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
