Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument recently in a piece where he cited steps including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct approach to ensuring his voters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is likely a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members apart from one nation 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:
EU members call for calm and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. 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 interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an appearance 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 the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, 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 government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
