Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' 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 blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing supporters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge calm and caution by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition violated global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the legal aspect 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.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
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 mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
