Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight government actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case recently in a piece where he referenced steps including plans to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, his cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge calm and caution by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
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 afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning 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 scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
