Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight government actions to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this argument recently in an article where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce utility costs. However, his economic media push has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to ensuring his voters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and caution by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
The migration minister, 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 worried of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining 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 China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Asked about Starmer declining 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 separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
