Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer 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 argument yesterday in an article where he cited measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing his voters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for calm 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 the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, 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 broke international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former 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 declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press 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 Venezuela.
