Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on government actions to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this case yesterday in an article where he cited measures including proposals to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring his voters receive cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate ongoing 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 cooperative with American interests, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles 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 pillar of the global security framework.
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 violated global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking 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 former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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 area of control.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
Ultimately 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 US administration. I can get in front of us and say I cannot 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 Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
