Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' actions to reduce the cost of living. He set out this case yesterday in an article where he cited measures including proposals to cut energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic media push has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing supporters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for calm and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining 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 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 key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (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 sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.
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 update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
