Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in a piece where he cited steps including proposals to cut utility costs. However, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing his voters get access to cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on adopting the American method – 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 the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in relation to 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 lawful. Recently, all EU states except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and caution by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- 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 sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “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 getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want 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 valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote 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: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
