Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this argument recently in an article where he cited steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. However, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing supporters receive affordable power.
No one in British political life appears very keen on embracing the American method – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
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 replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and caution by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (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 sphere of influence.
Asked 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 “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. 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 proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due 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: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
