Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight government actions to bring down the cost of living. He set out this case recently in an article where he cited steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. However, his cost of living media push has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different 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 other nations.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members 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 principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, 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 refusing 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 juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies 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 area of control.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she 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 added:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to 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: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime 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 make comments to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
