Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government actions to bring down the cost of living. He set out this argument yesterday in an article where he cited measures including plans to reduce utility costs. However, his economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to ensuring his voters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is probably good news for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and caution by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets 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 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 global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States 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 former 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.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative 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 tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
