Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' efforts to bring down the cost of living. He set out this case recently in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, his economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring supporters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and restraint by all actors, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition broke global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at 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 China’s Xi Jinping, 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, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately 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 get in front of everyone 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 talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.
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 expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
