Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument recently in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring his voters get access to affordable power.
No one in British political life seems very keen on adopting the American method – which is likely good news 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 abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles 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 uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition broke international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the steps 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, 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 breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. 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 want to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour 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 queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
