Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on government efforts to bring down the living expenses. He set out this argument recently in a piece where he cited measures including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is probably good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way 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 compliant with American interests, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility 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 afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- 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 sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. 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 speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.