Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced steps including plans to reduce utility costs. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring his voters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life seems very keen on embracing the American method – which is likely good news for Norway.
But there is an intense debate ongoing 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 relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the American intervention, and the administration 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 explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and caution by all parties, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the principles 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 defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was conducting 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 worried of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried 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 sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, 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 minister, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well want to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can state before everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
