Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced steps including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on embracing the American method – which is probably 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 abduct 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 refused to criticise the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. 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 global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting 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 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 area of control.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach 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 minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before us 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office 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.
