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 argument recently in an article where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring supporters get access to cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition broke international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, 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 the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation 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 minister, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can get in front of us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
