Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He set out this case yesterday in an article where he cited measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic media push has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to ensuring his voters get access to affordable power.
No one in British political life seems particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is an intense debate ongoing 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 expected to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, 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 declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain 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 talking with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an interview 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.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach 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 different position because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] 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 proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders 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: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
