Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight government efforts to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this argument recently in an article where he referenced measures including plans to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing supporters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure 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 prepared to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and caution by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
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 juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an interview 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 China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the American government. I can state before us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
