Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on government actions to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this argument recently in a piece where he referenced steps including proposals to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing supporters get access to cheap energy.
No one in British political life seems particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for calm and caution by all actors, to prevent escalation and to ensure 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 upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances 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 replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the legal aspect of this.
But recently, 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, 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:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory 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 make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
