Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' actions to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this argument yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring supporters get access to cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably good news for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and restraint by all parties, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the legal aspect 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.
Asked about Starmer declining 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 minister, she said. She added:
In the end 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 American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. 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 scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
