Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' efforts to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in an article where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring his voters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably 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 extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for calm and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in discussions 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 consulting with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former 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.
Questioned 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 “a number of considerations”. 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 an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour 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: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
