Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' efforts to reduce the cost of living. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced steps including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing his voters get access to cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
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 install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure 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 one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and restraint by all actors, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. 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 conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition violated international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, 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 went on:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the justification is from the US administration. 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street 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 statement to MPs about Venezuela.
