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 a piece where he cited steps including proposals to cut energy bills. However, his economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters receive affordable power.
No one in British political life appears very keen on adopting the American method – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and restraint by all actors, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition broke global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin 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 violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of us 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
