Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' actions to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring supporters receive cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on embracing the American method – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
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 cooperative with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and caution by all parties, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent 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 conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition violated global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, she said, because the PM was in office, 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:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well want to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before us and say I literally 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 Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
