Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' actions to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this argument recently in a piece where he cited measures including proposals to cut utility costs. However, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring supporters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, 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 principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the juridical dimension 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 very concerned 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 sphere of influence.
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 added:
Ultimately 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 state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule 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 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister 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 press 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.
