Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case yesterday in an article where he referenced steps including plans to reduce energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing his voters receive affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on adopting 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 prepared to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for calm and restraint by all actors, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN 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 global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances 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:
Not at all. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she 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 government member, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. 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: 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 Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
