Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight government actions to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this argument recently in an article where he cited steps including plans to cut utility costs. However, his economic PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is an intense debate under way 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 anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for calm and caution by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was conducting 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 worried of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried 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.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
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 state before everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the media.
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 the ongoing situation.
