Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring his voters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on embracing the American method – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining 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 deeply worried 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.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, 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 not a legal action.
[Starmer] 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 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 talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
