Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to reduce utility costs. However, his cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life seems particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer 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 except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for calm and caution by all parties, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a cornerstone 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 broke international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies 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 very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader 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 global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before 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 Labour 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: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.
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 statement to MPs about Venezuela.
