Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the cost of living. He set out this argument yesterday in an article where he cited measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on adopting the American method – which is probably 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 expected to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and caution by all actors, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried 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 global rules, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. 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 getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the reasoning 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 schedule 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 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 press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
