Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in an article where he referenced steps including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to ensuring supporters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round 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 replied:
Not at all. The British government 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 undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- 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 breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, 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 added:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of us 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 opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. 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 scheduled to make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street 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.
