Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight government actions to bring down the living expenses. He set out this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including plans to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring his voters receive affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on adopting the American method – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
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 violated global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, 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 the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead 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 press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
