Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this argument recently in an article where he cited measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. However, his cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on adopting the American method – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and caution by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (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 violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone 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 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. 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 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.
