Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the cost of living. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone 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 antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, 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.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, she said, because the PM was in office, 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 added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.
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 anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
