Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight government actions to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this case yesterday in an article where he cited measures including plans to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, his cost of living media push has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing his voters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance 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 resolution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition broke global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the legal aspect of this.
But recently, 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 the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, 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 government member, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
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: John Swinney, 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 looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote 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: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
