Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in a piece where he referenced steps including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is an intense debate under way 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 compliant with American interests, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.
But last night, 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 sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach 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 government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before everyone 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 Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections 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: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
