Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight government efforts to bring down the living expenses. He set out this argument yesterday in an article where he cited measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing his voters get access to cheap energy.
No one in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.
But last night, 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 China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, 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 went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour 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 queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
