Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in an article where he referenced steps including plans to reduce energy bills. However, his cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing his voters get access to cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on adopting the American method – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and caution by all parties, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, 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 global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Not at all. UK ministers 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 steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners 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 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 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 balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately 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 state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer 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.
