Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the cost of living. He set out this argument recently in a piece where he cited steps including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring supporters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life appears very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely 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 expected to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. 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 series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former 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 global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position 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 listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. 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 queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
