Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' actions to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life appears very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a pillar 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 violated international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at 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 China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak 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: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
