Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, his cost of living media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing supporters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. 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 accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, 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 worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies 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.
Questioned 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 “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
Ultimately 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 agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
