Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight government efforts to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to cut energy bills. However, his cost of living media push has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing supporters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life appears very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition violated international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. 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 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 former 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.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position 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 wish to listen to what the justification is from the American government. I can state before 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 Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are gearing up 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: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
