Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to reduce the cost of living. He set out this case recently in a piece where he cited measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. However, Starmer’s economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters get access to cheap energy.
No one in British political life appears particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for calm and caution by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the UN 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 international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition broke international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. 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 juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an appearance 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Asked about Starmer declining 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 government member, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
