Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight government efforts to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in an article where he cited measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. However, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life appears very keen on adopting the American method – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared 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 relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and restraint by all parties, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
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 worried of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and the Chinese president, 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 “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
In the end 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 US administration. I can state before 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 Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour 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 questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
