Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this argument yesterday in a piece where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life appears very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely 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 the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, 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 declined to criticise the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and restraint by all actors, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations 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.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an interview 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 China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can state before us 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 Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
