Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to bring down the cost of living. He set out this case recently in a piece where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.
No one in British political life appears very keen on embracing the American method – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
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 replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the action 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 former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well want 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 opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
