Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in a piece where he referenced steps including plans to reduce utility costs. However, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters get access to affordable power.
No one in British political life seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely 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 expected to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach 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:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of us 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 speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer 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: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
