Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument recently in a piece where he cited measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, his cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters receive affordable power.
No one in British political life appears particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
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 anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and restraint by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition violated international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, 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 China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry 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 added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
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 speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. 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 due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
