Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on government efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way 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 expected to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and caution by all parties, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
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 international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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 area of control.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position 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 hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule 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 party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
