Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this argument recently in a piece where he referenced steps including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on embracing the American method – which is probably 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 extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and restraint by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. 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 conducting 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, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- 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.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation 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 want to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the press.
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 statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
