Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight government actions to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to cut energy bills. However, his cost of living media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to extradite 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 declined to criticise the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried 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 breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the reasoning 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 speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the party heads 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: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
