Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to bring down the cost of living. He set out this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited measures including proposals to cut energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring supporters get access to affordable power.
No one in British political life seems very keen on adopting the American method – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
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. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring 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 any conditions, the principles 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 defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the juridical dimension 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
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 “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 want to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office 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 Venezuela.
