Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight government efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including proposals to cut utility costs. However, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters receive affordable power.
No one in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer 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, European Union members except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, 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 Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.
But recently, 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
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 minister, she said. She added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
