Good morning. Before Christmas, 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 outlined this argument yesterday in an article where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to ensuring his voters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and caution by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, 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 special duty to uphold 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 international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, 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 the Russian leader and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
In the end 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 US administration. 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: The Scottish first minister, 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 looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
