Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight government efforts to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this argument recently in an article where he referenced steps including plans to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on embracing the American method – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and caution by all parties, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
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 afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (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 area of control.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “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 escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning 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 due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
