Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and restraint by all actors, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution 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 defend those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, 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 the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the American government. I can get in front of us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. 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 make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press 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 the ongoing situation.
