Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this argument recently in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to reduce energy bills. However, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters receive cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on adopting the American method – which is likely good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the American intervention, 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 explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles 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 defend 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 refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers 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 examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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 sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead 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: 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 update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
