\n<\/p>\n
The Downing Street lobby briefing was mostly taken up with questions about Venezuela. Here are the main points.<\/p>\n
The PM\u2019s spokesperson did not contest the Times report claiming that, if the UN security council votes on a resolution criticising the US intervention in Venezuela, the UK will abstain.<\/strong> (See 12.11pm.) The spokesperson confirmed that Yvette Cooper, the foreign secretary, will make a statement to MPs this afternoon about Venezuela and he suggested she would cover this point in her statement.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n The spokesperson claimed it was \u201chypothetical\u201d to suggest, as Emily Thornberry did in her Westminter Hour interview, that the US move would encourage China or Russia to topple leaders that they don\u2019t like.<\/strong> Asked if Thornberry had a point, the spokesperson said:<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n I don\u2019t think it\u2019s massively helpful to get into hypothetical scenarios or make comparisons. We respect international law, and we expect countries to do the same.<\/p>\n The spokesperson also declined to comment on Trump\u2019s suggestions that he might seek to topple the regimes in power in Cuba or in Colombia.<\/strong> Asked about these countries, the spokesperson said these were \u201chypotheticial scenarios\u201d. When it was pointed out that Trump\u2019s threats to these countries go beyond the hypothetical, the spokesperson replied:<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n The UK\u2019s position on this is clear. We respect international law and any soveriegn state that recognises international law must set out the legal basis for its decisions and actions. That is for the US to speak to.<\/p>\n The spokesperson said that Cooper reiterated the UK\u2019s support for international law when she spoke to Marco Rubio, her US counterpart, last night.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n But the spokesperson would not say whether or not the government thinks the US did break international law.<\/strong> Asked about this, the spokesperson referred to what Mike Tapp, the migration minister, said this morning about the need for the US to justify its decision. (See 9.56am.) Asked again what the government thought, the spokesperson also said that there is a long-standing principle that governments don\u2019t publish their internal legal advice. Asked if there were any circumstances in which kidnapping the head of state of another country could be legal, the spokesperson said:<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n We have long supported the transition of power away from Maduro. He\u2019s an illegitimate president. We shed no tears about the end of his rule in Venezuela.<\/p>\n The spokesperson repeated what Keir Starmer said this morning about the future of Greenland being a matter for Greenland and Denmark, not Trump.<\/strong> (See 12pm.) But he said Nato countries agreed that they faced a threat from Russia in the Arctic. Nato was stepping up to respond, he said.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n The spokesperson would not say whether the UK would withhold intelligence from the US if it had concerns about the Americans breaking international law.<\/strong> Asked about this, he just said he would not comment on intelligence matters.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Share<\/p>\n Updated at\u00a008.07 EST<\/p>\n <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Key events<\/p>\n <\/span>Show key events only<\/p>\n Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature<\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n John Swinney<\/strong>, Scotland\u2019s first minister, has said he does think the US arrest of Nicol\u00e1s Maduro was a breach of international law.<\/p>\n Speaking at the SNP event in Glasgow this morning, Swinney said:<\/p>\n I am deeply concerned at the situation which has unfolded in Venezuela.<\/p>\n There is no doubt that the Maduro<\/em> regime was an illegitimate and authoritarian regime.<\/p>\n However, I am clear that all nations must abide by the international, rules-based system.<\/p>\n Having listened carefully to what has been said by the United States administration in recent days, I cannot see how international law has been respected here.<\/p>\n Share<\/p>\n Ed Davey<\/strong>, the Lib Dem leader, has welcomed Keir Starmer\u2019s comments about Greenland. (See 12pm.) He posted this response on social media.<\/p>\n About time.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s hope this is the start of Keir Starmer standing up for Britain and our allies when it really matters.<\/p>\n Share<\/p>\n A reader asks:<\/p>\n What realistic control does parliament have over foreign policy? Does it have any at all?<\/p>\n I know parliament now votes on war but that\u2019s only a convention not a law. What about everything else? Treaties are a power reserved for the prime minister but can parliament affect their contents in any meaningful way? Is foreign policy democratically accountable?<\/p>\n Good question. And broadly you are right. Much foreign policy does not involve legislation, but does involve the exercise of prerogative powers (where ministers can take decisions at will on the grounds that they are acting on behalf of the king). Keir Starmer did propose before the election legislating to ensure that MPs would always have a vote on going to war, but that seems less of a priority now. MPs do vote on treaties, under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (Crag). But, even here, their powers are limited; they can\u2019t rewrite treaties, only delay their implementation a bit.<\/p>\n But it would be a mistake to assume this means prime ministers can do what they want in foreign policy. As ever, they are constrained to an extent by what their MPs and ministers will tolerate. Of the 10 post-war prime ministers who left office not because of an election defeat but for another reason, half of them were forced out largely or in part because of foreign policy. They were: Eden (Suez), Thatcher (Europe), Blair (Gaza \u2013 Labour MPs thought he was too supportive of Israel in the 2006 conflict), Cameron (Brexit) and May (Brexit).<\/p>\n Share<\/p>\n The latest episode of our Politics Weekly UK podcast is out. Pippa Crerar<\/strong> and Kiran Stacey<\/strong> are discussing Keir Starmer\u2019s reticence when it comes to criticising Donald Trump\u2019s flouting of international law.<\/p>\n Share<\/p>\n The Commons statement from Yvette Cooper, the foreign secretary, won\u2019t start until around 5.30pm. That is because there will be three urgent questions first.<\/p>\n 3.30pm:<\/em> Victoria Atkins, the shadow environment secretary, asks a UQ on the farm inheritance tax U-turn announced just before Christmas.<\/p>\n Around 4.15pm:<\/em> Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, asks a UQ on the two dangerous offenders absconding from HMP Leyhill on New Year\u2019s Day.<\/p>\n Around 5pm:<\/em> James Cartlidge, the shadow defence secretary, asks a UQ on the Northern Ireland Troubles bill.<\/p>\n Share<\/p>\n The Downing Street lobby briefing was mostly taken up with questions about Venezuela. Here are the main points.<\/p>\n The PM\u2019s spokesperson did not contest the Times report claiming that, if the UN security council votes on a resolution criticising the US intervention in Venezuela, the UK will abstain.<\/strong> (See 12.11pm.) The spokesperson confirmed that Yvette Cooper, the foreign secretary, will make a statement to MPs this afternoon about Venezuela and he suggested she would cover this point in her statement.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n The spokesperson claimed it was \u201chypothetical\u201d to suggest, as Emily Thornberry did in her Westminter Hour interview, that the US move would encourage China or Russia to topple leaders that they don\u2019t like.<\/strong> Asked if Thornberry had a point, the spokesperson said:<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n I don\u2019t think it\u2019s massively helpful to get into hypothetical scenarios or make comparisons. We respect international law, and we expect countries to do the same.<\/p>\n The spokesperson also declined to comment on Trump\u2019s suggestions that he might seek to topple the regimes in power in Cuba or in Colombia.<\/strong> Asked about these countries, the spokesperson said these were \u201chypotheticial scenarios\u201d. When it was pointed out that Trump\u2019s threats to these countries go beyond the hypothetical, the spokesperson replied:<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n The UK\u2019s position on this is clear. We respect international law and any soveriegn state that recognises international law must set out the legal basis for its decisions and actions. That is for the US to speak to.<\/p>\n The spokesperson said that Cooper reiterated the UK\u2019s support for international law when she spoke to Marco Rubio, her US counterpart, last night.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n But the spokesperson would not say whether or not the government thinks the US did break international law.<\/strong> Asked about this, the spokesperson referred to what Mike Tapp, the migration minister, said this morning about the need for the US to justify its decision. (See 9.56am.) Asked again what the government thought, the spokesperson also said that there is a long-standing principle that governments don\u2019t publish their internal legal advice. Asked if there were any circumstances in which kidnapping the head of state of another country could be legal, the spokesperson said:<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n We have long supported the transition of power away from Maduro. He\u2019s an illegitimate president. We shed no tears about the end of his rule in Venezuela.<\/p>\n The spokesperson repeated what Keir Starmer said this morning about the future of Greenland being a matter for Greenland and Denmark, not Trump.<\/strong> (See 12pm.) But he said Nato countries agreed that they faced a threat from Russia in the Arctic. Nato was stepping up to respond, he said.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n The spokesperson would not say whether the UK would withhold intelligence from the US if it had concerns about the Americans breaking international law.<\/strong> Asked about this, he just said he would not comment on intelligence matters.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Share<\/p>\n Updated at\u00a008.07 EST<\/p>\n The UK will abstain at the United Nations security council if it it asked to vote on a resolution criticising the US arrest of Nicol\u00e1s Maduro, the Venezuelan president, Steven Swinford<\/strong> from the Times reports. Swinford says:<\/p>\n Britain will refrain from criticising the US over the capture of Maduro amid concerns about angering Donald Trump<\/p>\n The UK will not make any assessment on whether the action is lawful. If the issue is pushed to a vote at the UN Security Council the UK will abstain<\/p>\n The view is that it is not for the UK to make a judgement on a unilateral action by the US which the government knew nothing about in advance The government is concerned that doing so would risk jeopardising relations with the US at a critical time, particularly on the future of Ukraine<\/p>\n A senior government source said: \u2018This was a decision by the US. It is not for us make a judgment on whether it was lawful\u2019<\/p>\n Share<\/p>\n Updated at\u00a007.23 EST<\/p>\n Speaking to reporters this morning, Keir Starmer<\/strong> said Nicol\u00e1s Maduro, who was president of Venezuela until he was arrested by the Americans on Saturday and taken to a US jail, was not a legitimate ruler. He said:<\/p>\n What\u2019s happened here in Venezuela is obviously really important. We have long championed a peaceful transition to democracy, because the president was illegitimate.<\/p>\n Asked if he thought US had breached international law when it seized Maduro, Starmer declined to say.<\/p>\n But he said international law would have to be the the \u201canchor\u201d for the future of Venezuela. He told reporters:<\/p>\n International law is really important. It\u2019s the framework, and it\u2019s for the US to set out its justifications for the actions that it\u2019s taken. But it is a complicated situation. It remains a complicated situation. The most important thing is stability and that peaceful transition to democracy \u2026<\/p>\n I think the vast majority of Labour MPs would say that they want to see democracy in Venezuela. That is hugely important.<\/p>\n Share<\/p>\n At the weekend Mette Frederiksen<\/strong>, the Danish prime minister, said Donald Trump has no right to annex Greenland.<\/p>\n Asked about her comments today, Keir Starmer<\/strong> said:<\/p>\n Well, I stand with her, and she\u2019s right about the future of Greenland.<\/p>\n In a separate question, Starmer was asked if he agreed with calls from the Danes for the US president to stop proposing American annexation of the island. He replied:<\/p>\n Yes. Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark are to decide the future of Greenland, and only Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark.<\/p>\n Denmark is a close ally in Europe, it is a Nato ally, and it\u2019s very important the future of Greenland is, as I say, for the Kingdom of Denmark, and for Greenland, and only for Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark.<\/p>\n <\/span>Keir Starmer speaking to the media at an event in Reading this morning.<\/span> Photograph: WPA\/Getty ImagesShare<\/p>\n Keir Starmer<\/strong> has said he \u201cstands\u201d with Denmark after Donald Trump threatened to annex Greenland, adding that Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen was \u201cright\u201d to refuse the US president any claim to the territory, PA Media reports.<\/p>\n I will post the full quotes when I get them.<\/p>\n Share<\/p>\n Libby Brooks<\/span><\/p>\n Libby Brooks is the Guardian\u2019s Scotland correspondent.<\/em><\/p>\n The SNP struck a determinedly optimistic note at their Holyrood elections campaign launch in Glasgow\u2019s west end this morning.<\/p>\n Successive candidates referenced a \u201cyear of opportunity\u201d, \u201chope\u201d and \u201ca positive vision for the future\u201d – all based on the promise of independence.<\/p>\n The party leadership is urging Scots to vote for a majority of SNP MSPs in May, which they argue will create an unarguable momentum for a second referendum on independence, no matter how vehemently the UK government insists it won\u2019t happen.<\/p>\n The SNP leader and first minister, John Swinney<\/strong>, contrasted this hopeful mood with a UK \u201clurching to the right\u201d and a UK government \u201cevermore distant from offering solutions to Scotland\u2019s challenges\u201d.<\/p>\n Swinney insisted that his strategy \u201ccouldn\u2019t be clearer\u201d that a second referendum \u201cflows from\u201d a SNP Holyrood majority. It\u2019s a \u201cfundamental democratic principle\u201d that the people of Scotland should be allowed to decide their own future, with a precedent of the 2011 election and the subsequent 2014 referendum, he said.<\/p>\n But this still doesn\u2019t address the fact that successive UK governments have said they won\u2019t grant Holyrood the powers to hold another vote – a roadblock that Swinney offers no route around and renders this morning\u2019s optimum pretty empty.<\/p>\n Here is a clip from Swinney\u2019s speech.<\/p>\n Share<\/p>\n Donald Trump\u2019s decision to get rid of the Venezuelan president using military force has renewed fears that Greenland is next on his acquisition list.<\/p>\n On Saturday Katie Miller<\/strong>, a rightwing podcaster married to Stephen Miller, Trump\u2019s deputy chief of staff, posted this on X.<\/p>\n On Sky News this morning Sophy Ridge<\/strong>, the presenter, repeatedly tried to get Mike Tapp<\/strong>, the migration minister doing interviews on behalf of the government this morning, to say that annexing Greenland would be unacceptable. In line with Keir Starmer\u2019s thinking on the importance of not upsetting Trump (see 10.28am), Tapp<\/strong> talked about \u201ccareful diplomatic conversations\u201d and pointed out that the US and Denmark, which has sovereignty over Greenland, are both Nato members.<\/p>\n Here is the clip.<\/p>\n If Donald Trump moves on Greenland will you condemn it?<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019re not going to give a running commentary\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cYou can’t say Donald Trump shouldn’t invade Greenland?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cDiplomacy is delicate, which means we’re not here to give a running commentary in the news\u201dpic.twitter.com\/pKsJUldRHs<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Swinney says he ‘cannot see’ how Maduro arrest complied with international law<\/h2>\n
Do MPs have any real influence over foreign policy?<\/h2>\n
No 10 suggests UK would not vote for UN security council resolution condemning US arrest of Maduro<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
UK will abstain if UN security council has to vote on resolution criticising US arrest of Manduro, report claims<\/h2>\n
Starmer says international law ‘really important’, but won’t say if he thinks Trump has complied with it<\/h2>\n
Starmer says Greenland and Denmark must decide future of Greenland, not Trump<\/h2>\n
Starmer backs Danish PM in saying Trump has no right to any claim over Greenland<\/h2>\n
John Swinney insists SNP majority would be mandate for new independence referendum at campaign launch<\/h2>\n
Minister accused of ‘cowardice’ after declining TV interviewer’s challenge to say Trump should not invade Greenland<\/h2>\n