Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' efforts to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including proposals to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring supporters get access to cheap energy.
No one in British political life appears very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members except Hungary 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:
EU members call for calm and caution by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing 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, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the juridical dimension 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 deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry 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 added:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled 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: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
