Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to bring down the cost of living. He set out this case recently in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to ensuring his voters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion 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 anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and caution by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a pillar 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 international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an appearance 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 the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry 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 minister, she said. She added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the justification 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: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
