Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' efforts to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in an article where he referenced measures including plans to reduce utility costs. However, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring his voters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way 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 anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and caution by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union recalls 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 defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition broke international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, 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 China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she 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:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I cannot 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 Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
