Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this case yesterday in an article where he cited steps including proposals to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems 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 willing to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
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 steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an appearance 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.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer 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 lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
