Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on government actions to bring down the cost of living. He set out this case yesterday in an article where he cited steps including plans to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring supporters get access to cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was conducting 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. The British government is, and will, be in discussions 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 close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an appearance 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 refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the justification is from the American government. 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: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office 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.
