Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government efforts to reduce the living expenses. He set out this argument yesterday in an article where he referenced steps including proposals to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing supporters receive affordable power.
No one in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in relation to 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 viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and caution by all actors, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU recalls 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 particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing 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 afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an appearance 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 global rules, she 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 government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
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 cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
