Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in an article where he cited steps including proposals to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring supporters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life seems particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is likely good news for Norway.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- 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 area of control.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she 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:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can state before everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
