Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight government actions to bring down the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in an article where he cited measures including proposals to cut utility costs. However, his cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring his voters get access to affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge calm and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes 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 talking with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
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 balance “a number of considerations”. 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 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 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 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour 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 queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
