Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' efforts to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this argument recently in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to ensuring his voters get access to affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is likely a positive development for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
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 afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans 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 last night, 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach 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 went on:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street 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.
