Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument recently in an article where he referenced steps including proposals to cut energy bills. However, his cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring supporters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure 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 willing to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty 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 violated international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried 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 sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, Thornberry 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 government member, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well want to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can state before everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
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 speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak 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: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
