Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced steps including plans to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to ensuring his voters get access to cheap energy.
No one in British political life appears very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and caution by all parties, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, 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 worried of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain 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 talking with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she 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 escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press 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 Venezuela.
