Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case recently in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to cut utility costs. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is likely a positive development for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion 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 regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and restraint by all actors, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition violated global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners 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 sphere of influence.
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 separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. 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: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
