Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to reduce the cost of living. He set out this case yesterday in an article where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution 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 defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition violated global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- 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 sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach 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 separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone 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 speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
