Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to bring down the living expenses. He set out this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including plans to reduce utility costs. However, his cost of living media push has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring his voters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried 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 sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she 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:
In the end 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 get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am 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 media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
