Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to bring down the cost of living. He set out this case recently in a piece where he cited measures including plans to cut utility costs. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing his voters get access to affordable power.
No one in British political life seems very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition violated global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and the Chinese president, 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, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can state before us 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
