Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters get access to affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on embracing the American method – which is probably good news for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing 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 compliant with American interests, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered 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 global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and caution by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the steps 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 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 “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 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 opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. 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 scheduled to speak to the press.
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 update to MPs about Venezuela.
