Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in a piece where he referenced steps including plans to reduce utility costs. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters receive cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and caution by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, 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 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 refusing to say the Maduro extradition violated international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an interview 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 refusing to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press 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.
