Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument recently in an article where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. However, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to ensuring supporters receive cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on adopting 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 the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused 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 Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for calm and restraint by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- 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.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can state before everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
