Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' actions to reduce the cost of living. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he cited measures including proposals to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life seems particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is probably good news for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. 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 doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried 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 area of control.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of 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 mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead 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 media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
