Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight government efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case recently in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing his voters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is likely good news for other nations.
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 expected to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, 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 refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an appearance 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 the Russian leader and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
