Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government actions to reduce the cost of living. He set out this case recently in an article where he referenced steps including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring his voters get access to affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is likely a positive development 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 US demands, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and caution by all parties, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. 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 steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an appearance 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 sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, 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 listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally 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 mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
