Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' efforts to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this argument recently in an article where he cited steps including proposals to reduce utility costs. However, Starmer’s economic media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring supporters get access to cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably good news 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 anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can get in front of us 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
