Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government efforts to reduce the cost of living. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced steps including plans to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring supporters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life appears particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is probably a positive development 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 extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU reiterates 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 uphold those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition violated global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners 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 ex- 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 area of control.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well want to listen to 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 agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
