Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to ensuring supporters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate 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 anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge calm and caution by all parties, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.
But last night, 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Asked about Starmer declining 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 separate situation 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 US administration. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister 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: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
