Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He set out this argument recently in a piece where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring his voters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life seems very keen on adopting the American method – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and restraint by all actors, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp 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 taken. And we’re also consulting 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 former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried 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 declining to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone and say I cannot 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 Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak 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 statement to MPs about Venezuela.
