Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' actions to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this argument recently in an article where he cited measures including plans to reduce utility costs. However, his cost of living media push has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing his voters receive affordable power.
No one in British political life appears very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion 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 cooperative with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and caution by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition broke global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, 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 an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are gearing up 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 press 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 Venezuela.
