Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to bring down the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring his voters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union 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 principles of the rules-based order 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.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:
Not at all. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, Thornberry 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 government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer 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 queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
