Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' actions to bring down the living expenses. He set out this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited measures including proposals to cut utility costs. However, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring his voters get access to cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – 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 abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition violated global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining 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 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 refusing to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, 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 getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
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 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 speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments 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 anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
