Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight government efforts to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this argument recently in a piece where he cited measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing supporters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life appears very keen on adopting the American method – which is likely good news for Norway.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action 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.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and caution by all actors, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles 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 uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was doing 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, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners 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 the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, Thornberry 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 government member, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally 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 Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote 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.
