Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including plans to reduce energy bills. However, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life appears very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably good news 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 abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and restraint by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis 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 China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach 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 minister, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish 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 proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office 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.
