Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government efforts to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including plans to cut utility costs. However, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to ensuring his voters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life appears very keen on adopting the American method – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and caution by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an appearance 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry 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 went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
