Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on government efforts to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this argument recently in an article where he cited measures including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to ensuring supporters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for calm and restraint by all actors, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. 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 series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former 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.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street 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.
