Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this argument recently in a piece where he cited measures including plans to cut energy bills. However, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring supporters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development 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 the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and restraint by all actors, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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 sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, 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.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer 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: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
