Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight government actions to bring down the living expenses. He set out this case recently in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. However, Starmer’s economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing supporters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate ongoing 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 compliant with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge calm 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 principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale 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 ex- shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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 global rules, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before everyone and say I literally 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 opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
