Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight government actions to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in an article where he referenced steps including plans to cut utility costs. However, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably 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 replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for calm and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. 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 former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, she 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 government member, 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 justification is from the US administration. I can state before us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are gearing up 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 press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
