Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight government actions to bring down the cost of living. He set out this case recently in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, his cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably good news for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing 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 compliant with US demands, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a cornerstone 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 broke international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the juridical dimension 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 deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader 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 global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the press.
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 expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
