Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight government efforts to reduce the living expenses. He set out this argument yesterday in a piece where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce utility costs. However, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring supporters get access to cheap energy.
No one in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and restraint by all actors, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
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 global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.
But recently, 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 the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she 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 added:
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 justification 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: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
