Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to bring down the living expenses. He set out this argument yesterday in a piece where he referenced steps including proposals to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring supporters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably 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 abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him 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 censure the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and caution by all parties, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- 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 sphere of influence.
Asked 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 separate situation 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 want to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. 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 due to make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
