Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this argument recently in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. However, his economic media push has been overshadowed 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 seems very keen on adopting the American method – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
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, European Union members apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, 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 replied:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- 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 area of control.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation 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 government member, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead 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: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
