Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on government actions to reduce the cost of living. He set out this argument recently in an article where he referenced steps including plans to cut utility costs. However, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing his voters get access to affordable power.
No one in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge calm and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting 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 worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining 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 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 area of control.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “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 getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
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 mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are gearing up 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 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 statement to MPs about Venezuela.
