Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in a piece where he cited measures including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing supporters get access to cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on embracing the American method – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and caution by all actors, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty 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 responded:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the Chinese president, 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, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
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 talks, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead 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: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
