Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case recently in an article where he cited measures including plans to reduce utility costs. However, Starmer’s economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on embracing the American method – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate 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 anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU 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 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 international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an appearance 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 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 breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before us and say I cannot 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 opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due 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 anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
