Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and caution by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. The British government 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 undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners 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 very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she 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 minister, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the leaders 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 questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
