Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this argument recently in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing 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.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the US action, 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 explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, 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 global security framework.
The migration minister, was conducting 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 antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But last night, 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 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 breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation 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 hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. 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: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am 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 due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
