Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this argument recently in a piece where he cited measures including plans to cut utility costs. However, Starmer’s economic media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring supporters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life appears very keen on embracing the American method – which is likely a positive development for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion 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 compliant with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for calm and caution by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a pillar 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 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 Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, 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 sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the justification 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 speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
