Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in a piece where he referenced steps including plans to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring supporters receive affordable power.
No one in British political life seems particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing 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 censure the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
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 broke international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry 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:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
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 speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
