Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight government efforts to bring down the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he cited measures including proposals to cut utility costs. However, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing his voters get access to affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on embracing the American method – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing 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 expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members except 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:
EU members urge restraint and restraint by all actors, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order 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 cornerstone of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition broke international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, 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 China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the American government. I can state before us 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 speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
