Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case recently in an article where he referenced measures including plans to cut energy bills. However, his economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to ensuring his voters get access to cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on adopting the American method – which is probably good news for other nations.
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 install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances 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 responded:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- 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 sphere of influence.
Questioned 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 different position because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
In the end 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 US administration. I can state before us 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
