Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' efforts to bring down the cost of living. He set out this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited measures including plans to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, his economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to ensuring his voters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on adopting the American method – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is an intense debate under way 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 US demands, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure 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 upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But last night, 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 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, 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 went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] 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 proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
