Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight government actions to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in an article where he referenced measures including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct approach to ensuring supporters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold 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 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 United States to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners 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.
Questioned 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 “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately 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 US administration. I can get in front of us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
