Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' efforts to bring down the living expenses. He set out this case recently in a piece where he cited steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters receive affordable power.
No one in British political life seems particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
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 install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by implication accuse 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 crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition violated international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions 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 legal aspect 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 the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to 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 Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit 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 questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
