Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' efforts to bring down the living expenses. He set out this case recently in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring supporters get access to cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on adopting the American method – which is likely good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and caution by all parties, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the United Nations 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 doing an interview round 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, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions 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 legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- 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 violation of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
