Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He set out this case yesterday in an article where he cited measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, his cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters get access to cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and caution by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition violated global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and the Chinese president, 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, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
