Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight government efforts to reduce the cost of living. He set out this argument yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic media push has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring his voters receive affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure 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 explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and caution by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
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 upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation 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 different position because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before us 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
