Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case recently in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to reduce energy bills. However, his economic media push has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager 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 willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
