Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government efforts to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this argument recently in a piece where he referenced steps including plans to cut energy bills. However, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct approach to ensuring his voters get access to affordable power.
No one in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is likely 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, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the steps 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 ex- shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, 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 escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, 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: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
