Welcome back. 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 yesterday in a piece where he cited measures including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge calm and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend 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 Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, 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, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour 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 questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
