Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on government actions to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this argument recently in a piece where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. However, his economic PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to ensuring his voters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on embracing the American method – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
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 cooperative with US demands, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and restraint by all actors, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried 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.
Asked about Starmer refusing 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 went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
