Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight government efforts to reduce the living expenses. He set out this argument recently in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. However, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate 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 cooperative with US demands, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for calm and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. 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 interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition broke global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations 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 recently, in an appearance 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 China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked 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:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well want to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
