Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including proposals to reduce utility costs. However, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to ensuring supporters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is likely good news 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 Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, 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 accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and caution by all parties, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the juridical dimension 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.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone 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 Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
