Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' efforts to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in a piece where he cited measures including plans to cut energy bills. However, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the legal aspect 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 the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. 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 wish to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
