Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government actions to bring down the cost of living. He set out this argument recently in a piece where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life appears very keen on embracing the American method – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for calm and caution by all actors, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
The migration minister, 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 upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. 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 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 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 sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation 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 minister, she said. She went on:
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 everyone and say I cannot 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 opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the leaders 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 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 anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
