Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He set out this argument recently in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for calm and caution by all actors, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin 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 violation of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning 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 due to make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
