Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' efforts to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this argument recently in an article where he cited measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. However, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters receive cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion 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 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 administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing 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 afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at 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 deeply worried 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 area of control.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, 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 minister, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street 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 the ongoing situation.
