Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight government actions to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. However, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to ensuring his voters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life seems particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way 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 expected to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and caution by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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 area of control.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
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 talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister 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: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
