Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight government actions to reduce the cost of living. He set out this case recently in an article where he referenced measures including plans to reduce utility costs. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring supporters get access to affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is probably good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition violated international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting 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 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 sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position 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.
[Starmer] 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 proper justification.
Here is the schedule 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 mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press 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.
