Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight government actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in an article where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce utility costs. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring his voters get access to affordable power.
No one 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 replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and restraint by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. 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 due to speak to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
