Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he cited measures including plans to cut energy bills. However, his economic PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing his voters get access to cheap energy.
No one in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge calm and restraint by all actors, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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 declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. 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 Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit 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: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.