Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this argument yesterday in an article where he cited steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. However, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed 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 British political life appears very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct 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.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for calm and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing 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 worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the juridical dimension 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.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she 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 went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. 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: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
