Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on government actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this argument recently in an article where he referenced steps including plans to cut utility costs. However, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing his voters get access to cheap energy.
No one in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is likely a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition broke international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin 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 government, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone 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 1pm respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour 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 questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
