Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight government efforts to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in an article where he cited steps including plans to reduce energy bills. However, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring supporters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge calm and restraint by all actors, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting 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 upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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 violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of us 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
