Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' efforts to bring down the living expenses. He set out this case recently in a piece where he cited measures including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic media push has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing his voters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure 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 willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and restraint by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, 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 standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition violated global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the juridical dimension 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 sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote 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: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
