Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' actions to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in an article where he referenced steps including proposals to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared 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 nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge calm and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was doing an series of media appearances 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:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “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 getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. 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 speak 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 Venezuela.
