Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument recently in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, his cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to ensuring his voters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and caution by all parties, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN 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 international security architecture.
The migration minister, was conducting 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 afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former 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 sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach 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 minister, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before everyone 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street 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.
