Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government actions to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this argument yesterday in an article where he cited measures including plans to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing supporters receive cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development 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 replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking 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 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.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “multiple factors”. 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 getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the justification is from the American government. 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: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
