Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on government efforts to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in an article where he cited steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing his voters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
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 anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
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 broke international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- 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 area of control.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach 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 added:
In the end 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 state before everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. 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 media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
