Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight government actions to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to ensuring supporters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably good news for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for calm and restraint by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. 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 refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale 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 ex- shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm 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 scheduled 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: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
