Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case yesterday in a piece where he cited measures including plans to reduce utility costs. However, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring supporters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, 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 particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- 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 area of control.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry 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 went on:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
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 lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer 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 questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
