Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case recently in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to cut energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing his voters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life seems particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused 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 Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and caution by all actors, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners 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 deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, 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 want to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
