Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case recently in a piece where he referenced steps including plans to reduce energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on embracing the American method – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, 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 viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and restraint by all actors, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- 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.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. 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: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
