Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight government efforts to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this argument recently in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to cut utility costs. However, Starmer’s economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and caution by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was doing 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 afraid 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 Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin 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, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.
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 update to MPs about Venezuela.
