Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' actions to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in an article where he referenced steps including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters receive affordable power.
No one in British political life appears particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is likely good news for other nations.
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 replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
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 global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (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.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, 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 went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. 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: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour 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 questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
