Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight government efforts to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in an article where he cited steps including proposals to cut energy bills. However, his economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager 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 the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, 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 upsetting Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain 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 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 very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well want to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can state before everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
