Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case recently in a piece where he referenced steps including proposals to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life seems very keen on embracing the American method – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
The migration minister, 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 upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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 refusing 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 separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the reasoning 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: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
