Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government efforts to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited measures including proposals to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring supporters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for calm and caution by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition violated global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, 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.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. 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 speak to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
