Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He set out this argument recently in an article where he cited measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. However, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on adopting the American method – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision 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 censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets 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 principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an interview 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 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 violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
