Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government efforts to bring down the cost of living. He set out this argument recently in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. However, his economic PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to ensuring his voters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge calm and restraint by all actors, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone 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 broke international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting 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 China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked 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 “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the American government. I can state before everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
