Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He set out this case recently in an article where he cited measures including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct approach to ensuring supporters get access to cheap energy.
No one in British political life appears particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is probably 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 the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and caution by all actors, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition violated international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister 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 legal basis for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.
But last night, 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin 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 breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, 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 added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote 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 press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
