Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case yesterday in an article where he cited measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing supporters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life appears 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 the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for calm and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law 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 cornerstone 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 worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried 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.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the justification 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 agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, 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 visit 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 anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
