Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight government actions to bring down the living expenses. He set out this case recently in a piece where he cited measures including proposals to cut utility costs. However, Starmer’s economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life appears very keen on embracing the American method – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend 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 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 conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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 violation of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street 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.
