Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight government actions to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this argument recently in an article where he referenced steps including proposals to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life appears very keen on embracing 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 cooperative with US demands, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and restraint by all parties, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold 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 declining to say the Maduro extradition violated global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in conversations 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 consulting with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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 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 went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled 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.
