Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on government efforts to bring down the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in an article where he cited steps including plans to cut utility costs. However, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life appears very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of global rules, 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 ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at 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 very concerned 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 violation of global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well want to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
