Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight government efforts to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to reduce energy bills. However, his cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- 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.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she 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 went on:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before 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 opposition leader, and Scottish Tory 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: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
