Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' efforts to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in a piece where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing supporters receive affordable power.
No one in British political life appears very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for calm and caution by all parties, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union 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 global security framework.
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, the minister replied:
Not at all. UK ministers 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 undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an interview 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.
Asked about Starmer declining 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 separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well want to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can get in front of us and say I cannot 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 Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
