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 bring down the cost of living. He set out this argument recently in an article where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, his cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters get access to cheap energy.
No one in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is likely 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 extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge calm and caution by all parties, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking 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 former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
Ultimately 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 us and say I cannot 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 Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
