Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including proposals to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and caution by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order 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 pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview 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 breach of global rules, Thornberry 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 added:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
