Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He set out this case recently in an article where he referenced steps including proposals to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing supporters receive affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing 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 cooperative with US demands, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge calm and caution by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution 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 special duty to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position 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 want to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. 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: Downing Street holds a lobby 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 the ongoing situation.
