Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to reduce the cost of living. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, his cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing supporters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is likely a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure 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 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 calm and caution by all parties, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing 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. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an appearance 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 the Chinese president, 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 weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well want to listen to 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 speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
