Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in an article where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on adopting the American method – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to extradite 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 declined to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and caution by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. 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 series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader 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, Thornberry 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 government member, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the American government. I can state before us 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 Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime 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 media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
