Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government efforts to reduce the cost of living. He set out this case recently in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. However, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing his voters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, 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 antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting 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 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 declining to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the justification 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: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
