Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to bring down the cost of living. He set out this argument recently in an article where he cited measures including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to ensuring supporters get access to cheap energy.
No one in British political life seems very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and caution by all parties, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, 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 broke international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader 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 global rules, she 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 government member, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour 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: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
