Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this argument recently in an article where he cited measures including proposals to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life seems very keen on adopting the American method – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge calm and restraint by all actors, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, 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 international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the juridical dimension 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 refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
