Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight government efforts to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including proposals to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring his voters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all parties, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order 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 global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an interview 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 government, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. 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 an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear 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 valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
