Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' actions to bring down the living expenses. He set out this case recently in an article where he cited steps including proposals to cut utility costs. However, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen on adopting the American method – which is likely a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and caution by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure 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 upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
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 broke global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- 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 sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry 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:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before everyone 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 Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
