Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to reduce the cost of living. He set out this argument yesterday in an article where he referenced measures including plans to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing supporters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen on embracing the American method – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances 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, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former 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.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
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 valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
