Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this case yesterday in an article where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. However, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and restraint by all actors, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing 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 upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- 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 refusing to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well wish 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 agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
