Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to reduce the cost of living. He set out this case recently in a piece where he cited measures including proposals to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing supporters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life appears very keen on embracing the American method – which is likely good news for Norway.
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 expected to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the government 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 explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge calm and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition broke international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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 area of control.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. 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 schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
