Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' efforts to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring his voters get access to cheap energy.
No one in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is likely a positive development for other nations.
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 replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, especially 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 joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and caution by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. 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 doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. 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 legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an interview 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 the Russian leader 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 global rules, she said, because the PM was in office, 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:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are gearing up 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: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
