Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced steps including plans to reduce utility costs. However, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
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 install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for calm and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law 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.
The migration minister, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former 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.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation 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 added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning 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: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
