Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight government actions to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case yesterday in a piece where he cited measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing his voters receive affordable power.
No one in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is probably good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
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 except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and caution by all actors, to avoid 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 UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain 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 interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former 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.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, 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 added:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well want to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
