Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' efforts to reduce the cost of living. He set out this argument recently in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to cut energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters get access to cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, 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 afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps 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 ex- 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 declining to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, Thornberry 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 went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before us 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 mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the media.
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 the ongoing situation.
