Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in an article where he cited measures including plans to cut energy bills. However, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to ensuring supporters receive cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development 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 Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and caution by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at 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 very concerned 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 area of control.
Questioned 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 “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 getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
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 mid-morning and 1pm respectively. 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 due to speak to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
