Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government efforts to bring down the cost of living. He set out this case yesterday in an article where he cited steps including plans to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters get access to cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is probably good news for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
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 special duty to defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
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 worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations 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 key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former 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.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda 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 respectively. All the party heads 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 media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office 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 Venezuela.
