Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to bring down the living expenses. He set out this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing his voters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate ongoing 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 compliant with American interests, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an interview 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 China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. 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 literally 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 speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled 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: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
