Welcome back. 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 case yesterday in an article where he cited measures including plans to reduce utility costs. However, his economic media push has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely good news for Norway.
But there is an intense debate ongoing 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 compliant with American interests, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for calm and restraint by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting 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 antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
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 taken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an appearance 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 sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm 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 lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
