Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely 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 the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition violated global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (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 area of control.
Asked 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 “multiple factors”. 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 wish to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. 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: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
