Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government 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. However, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life appears very keen on embracing the American method – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and restraint by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations 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 broke international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis 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 very concerned 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 different position because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally 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 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 visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
