Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government efforts to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this argument recently in an article where he referenced measures including plans to reduce energy bills. However, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is likely good news for Norway.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and restraint by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting 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 upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, 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 justification is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
