Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight government efforts to reduce the cost of living. He set out this case recently in a piece where he referenced steps including plans to reduce utility costs. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life seems very keen on adopting the American method – which is probably good news 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 Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant 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 viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition violated international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former 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 declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before 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 opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead 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: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby 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.
