Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight government actions to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in an article where he referenced measures including plans to reduce energy bills. However, his 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 appears very keen on embracing the American method – which is likely a positive development for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and caution by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was doing 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 upsetting Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- 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 area of control.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone 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 speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street 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 update to MPs about Venezuela.
