Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this case recently in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring his voters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge calm and caution by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, 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 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 juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at 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 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 breach of global rules, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. 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 an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to 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 proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead 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 questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
