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 bring down the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing 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 abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone 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 international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans 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 recently, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, 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 added:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well want to listen to what the justification 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 speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
