Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight government actions to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this case recently in a piece where he referenced steps including proposals to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters get access to cheap energy.
No one in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and caution by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former 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 breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before everyone 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 Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
