Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to ensuring supporters get access to cheap energy.
No one in British political life seems particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is probably good news for other nations.
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 replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
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 worried of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the juridical dimension 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, Thornberry 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 escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street 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.
