Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on government actions to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in an article where he referenced steps including proposals to cut utility costs. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing supporters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is probably a positive development 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 abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge calm and restraint by all actors, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out 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 recently, in an interview 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 sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
