Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight government efforts to reduce the cost of living. He set out this argument recently in a piece where he cited steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to ensuring his voters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is probably good news for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge calm and restraint by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a pillar 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 worried of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking 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 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 violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before everyone and say I literally 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 Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
