Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' efforts to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this case recently in an article where he referenced steps including plans to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, his cost of living media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing his voters get access to affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably good news for other nations.
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 install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and caution by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition broke international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an appearance 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 violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments 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 update to MPs about Venezuela.
