Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He set out this case recently in an article where he cited steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring supporters get access to cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on embracing the American method – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and caution by all actors, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, 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 principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was conducting an series of media appearances 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, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain 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 talking with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (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 sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, 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:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well want to listen to 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 opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm 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 scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
