Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to bring down the living expenses. He set out this argument recently in a piece where he cited measures including proposals to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing his voters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life appears very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably good news 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 expected to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for calm and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent 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 doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis 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 interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. 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 valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
