Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight government efforts to bring down the cost of living. He set out this argument recently in an article where he cited measures including plans to cut energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be 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 key partners examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, she said, because the PM was in office, 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 getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well want to hear what the justification is from the US administration. 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
