Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to bring down the living expenses. He set out this argument yesterday in an article where he cited measures including plans to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing his voters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition violated international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. 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 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 area of control.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders 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 media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
