Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' efforts to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case yesterday in an article where he cited steps including plans to reduce energy bills. However, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing supporters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on adopting the American method – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations 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 interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the juridical dimension 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 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 government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour 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 questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
