Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He set out this case recently in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to cut energy bills. However, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, 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 US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and restraint by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime 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 make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
