Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight government actions to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, his cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to ensuring his voters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and restraint by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a cornerstone 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 afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the juridical dimension 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 breach of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
In the end 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 American government. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
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 lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby 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 Venezuela.
