Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to bring down the living expenses. He set out this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. However, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring supporters receive affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and caution by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was doing 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, Tapp responded:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry 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 minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. 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 literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
