Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' efforts to bring down the living expenses. He set out this case recently in an article where he referenced steps including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters receive affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely good news for Norway.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a cornerstone 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 afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. The British government are and will remain in conversations 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 talking with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an interview 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 area of control.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech 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 gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press 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.
