Good morning. 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 living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was conducting 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 afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at 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 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 sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda 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 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to speak 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 expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
